Sri B.Saikalyan Chakravarthi
Prl. District Judge
PDJ Court VIZIANAGARAM · Vizianagaram · Andhra Pradesh
Sri B.Saikalyan Chakravarthi, Prl. District Judge, is posted at PDJ Court VIZIANAGARAM, Vizianagaram, Andhra Pradesh, India. 5,609 court orders on record since 2021. 35 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles MVOP, EP, AS cases.
Featured Judgments
IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS JUDGE, VIZIANAGARAM
Present: Sri B.Sai Kalyan Chakravarthi,
Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram
Thursday, the 03rd day of April, 2025
Sessions Case No.10/2024
1 Nameof: StaterepresentedbytheInspector of ComplainantPolice, Kothavalasa Police Station 2 Name of the Accused1. Jodu Naga Raju, S/o late Demudu, aged 33 years, ST Mannemdora by caste, Jodumeraka village,AppannadorapalemPanchayat, Kothavalasa Mandal. 2 Eeti Mounika, D/o late Beemraju, 23 years, ST Mannemdora by caste, rest ditto.
:302 of IPC: Punishment for murder 3 Charges 201 of IPC:Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender.
4 Plea of Accused: Not Guilty 5 Finding of the Judge1st accused is guilty for the charge U/s.302 of IPC and both accused are found not guilty for charge U/s.201 of IPC. 2nd Accused is not guilty of charge U/s.302 of IPC. : In the result, 1st accused is found not
6. Sentence or Order guilty for the charge under Section 201 of IPC and accordingly he is acquitted for the said charge, however, the 1st accused is found guilty for the charge under Section 302 of IPC and accordingly he is convicted under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C. for the said charge. Whereas, the 2nd accused is found not guilty for the charges under Section 302 and 201 of IPC and accordingly, she is acquitted under Section 235(1) for the said charges. The bail bonds of the 2nd accused, if any, shall stand canceled. The 2nd accused is directed to execute bond for her due appearance before the Hon’ble High Court in the event of appeal by the Prosecution. the 1st accused is sentenced to imprisonment for life and also to pay fine of ₹.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only), in default of payment of fine, to suffer Simple Imprisonment for one month for the charge under Section 302 of IPC. The remand period of the accused, if any, shall be given set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C., 7 Prosecution conducted by: Public Prosecutor, Vizianagaram 8 Defence conducted: Sri T h a t a R a j u Advocate for the 1st Accused
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 2 Sessions Case 10/2024
Sri Ch.Praveen Raju, Advocate for the 2nd Accused
J U D G M E N T
01. The Inspector of Police of Kothavalasa Police Station laid charge sheet against the Accused alleging that on 28.01.2022 at Peda
Goppu in Survey No.120 of Baligattam revenue village outskirts of
Ardhannapalem village of Kothavalasa Mandal in an isolated area covered with deep bushes, the 1st accused committed murder of his wife/Jodu
Lakshmi (herein after referred as “deceased”), in Crime No.24/2022of
Kothavalasa Police Station under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC.
02.The brief case of the Prosecution is that the deceased is the legally wedded wife of the 1st accused and that on 30.01.2022, the 1st accused lodged a report with the Police stating that his wife/Jodu
Lakshmi went to Sairam Sweets shop for attending work on 28.01.2022 at about 08:30 a.m. but she did not return even late night, upon that he went to the shop and asked the Owner of the said shop, for which, the
Owner informed that after completion of work, she went away, then, he searched for his wife in all possible places, but could not trace, hence lodged the report with the Police for taking action and at the time of her missing, she wore green colour dress. Basing on the said report, S.Bala
Surya Rao/Inspector of Police (L.W.32) registered a case in
Cr.No.24/2022 as “woman missing” and entrusted further investigation to A.Rahiman, ASI (L.W.31).
2.1.On 04.02.2022, Galla Venkata Raju (L.W.1) went to
Kothavalasa Police Station along with the 1st accused and presented a
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 3 Sessions Case 10/2024
report along with Extra Judicial Confession Statement of 1st accused and surrendered him before the Police. The report of Venkata Raju is that on 04.02.2022 at about 07:00 hours, while he was at his residence/Kothavalasa, the 1st accused came to his house and stated that he married one Lakshmi about 08 years back and they were blessed with a male child, thereafter, he suspected her fidelity and thereby he intended to eliminate her and marry the 2nd accused and when he asked his wife for divorce, she refused, at last, he intended to kill her in order to marry the 2nd accused, and, accordingly, on 28.01.2022 night at about 07:30 p.m. he took away his wife from car stand of Kothavalasa on his scooty bearing registration No.AP 39 FU 3678 by making her to believe that they are going to Teertham at Gollapeta, and proceeded towards
Peda Goppu down by Survey No.120 of Baligattam revenue village of
Ardhannapalem village outskirts and took her to an isolated place in deep bushes and killed her by beating her with a stone on the back side of her head for 3 or 4 times indiscriminately after throwing her over the stones, then, he kept sticks and palmyrah leaves over her dead body and poured petrol and lit fire and then he went away to Gollapeta village and on the next day i.e. on 29.01.2022 morning while, he went to same place, he found that some skull was not burnt properly, upon that he took away the same with some distance and lit fire by pouring petrol, by which time, he heard sound of a motorcycle, on that, he afraid that his identity would be revealed, and fled away from there, later, he went to his village and informed the village elders that his wife was found missing and then, he lodged a missing complaint at Kothavalasa Police station on
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 4 Sessions Case 10/2024
30.01.2022. Thus, basing on the report of Venkata Raju, the Inspector of
Police (L.W.32) altered the FIR from “Woman missing” to Section 302 and 201 of IPC on 04.02.2022. During the course of investigation, the
Inspector of Police arrested the accused in the presence of mediators viz.,
Venkata Raju (L.W.1) and Gokada Adavi Naidu (L.W.17) since the accused voluntarily confessed the offence in their presence that he killed his wife with pre-plan and conspiracy of the 2nd accused. The
Investigating Officer examined the witnesses and recorded their statements and produced the 1st accused before the Court for judicial remand. As a part of investigation, the Investigating Officer visited the scene of offence, observed the same, prepared rough sketch, and, thereafter on credible information, he along with the above referred mediators went to Gidijala village and apprehended the 2nd accused and she also voluntarily confessed the offence and arrested her and produced her before the Court for judicial remand. K.Geetha Madhuri, Scientific
Officer, RFSL, Visakhapatnam (L.W.27) analyzed the blood samples and gave her report opining that in item Nos.1 and 2, human blood is detected with “A” group blood. The Mandal Executive Magistrate,
Kothavalasa (L.W.29) conducted inquest over the dead body, at the time of inquest, the 1st accused was also present, after inquest, forwarded the dead body for postmortem examination and after receipt of medical reports and after completion of investigation, he filed the charge sheet.
03.The learned Magistrate, took cognizance for the charges under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC videP.R.C.No.01/2023 committed the case to the Court of Sessions since the offence under Sections 302 IPC is
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 5 Sessions Case 10/2024
exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, duly furnishing the case papers to the Accused.
04.After appearance of the Accused before this Court, they were examined and charges under Sections 302 and 201 are framed against the accused and read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
05.During the trial, the prosecution in support of their case examined P.Ws 1 to 20, got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.24 and exhibited
M.Os.1 to 16.
06.After completion of the prosecution evidence, the Accused were examined under Sections 313 Cr.P.C., by putting the incriminating material in the evidence of prosecution witnesses against the Accused, for which, the Accused denied the same, and reported no defence evidence, but got marked Exs.D.1 to D.4.
07.Heard both sides.
08.Now, the points for determination are:
Whether the Prosecution could bring home the guilt of the accused for charges under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?
Point:
09.
Before adverting to the conclusion with regard to the point-in-
issue, it is apposite to refer to the oral and documentary evidence available onrecord In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined the Village Revenue Officer to whom the accused give extra judicial confession as P.W.1, who stated that he is working as V.R.O,
Relli village. On 04.02.2022 at about 07:00 a.m while he was at his home, the 1st accused came to his house and confessed the commission of offence and he
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 6 Sessions Case 10/2024
drafted extra judicial confession, wherein he/PW.1 and Accused No.1 signed and later on as per confession, Accused No.1 burnt the deceased in cashew tope of Baligattam village and he/P.W.1 asked Accused No.1 to show the place where he burnt the deceased, accordingly Accused No.1 took him to cashew tope of Baligattam village, there he/P.W.1 saw the burnt ash and bones from there, he/P.W.1 took Accused No.1 to Police Station and surrender before
Inspector of Police at about 09:30 a.m., he submitted Ex.P.2/extra judicial confession along with his Ex.P.1/report and he signed on both and he/P.W.1 informed same to our Tahsildar.
9.1.P.W.1 further stated that Accused No.1 took him/P.W.1, Gokada
Adavi Naidu/L.W. 17 and the Police to the scene of offence along with clues team, videographer and Accused No.1 explained the way how he committed the offence and shown them the place where Accused No.1 burnt the body and the Inspector of Police identified ashes at two places and at the first place, they observed ashes, 7 (Seven) bones, metal bangles, mattelu, kalla pattilu, and at the second place half burnt hair, normal hair, ashes and the second place is at a distance of 20 feet from the first place and that the Inspector of
Police also seized blood stained stones and that both the scene of offence were videographed and seized material object and drafted scene observation report and they signed on it.
9.2.P.W.1 further stated that that he identified Ex.P.3/videograph of the Ex.P.4/scene of offence and M.O.1 is bones pieces-7 and M.O.2 is two metal bangles and M.O.3 is “Kalu mattelu”, M.O.4 is burnt “kalu patti”,
M.O.5 is ash at first scene, M.O.6 is half burnt green cloth piece, M.O.7 is half burnt hair, M.O.8 is hair, M.O.9 is three stones, M.O.10 is small stones
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 7 Sessions Case 10/2024
(Kankara Rallu). M.O.11 is ash packet, M.O.12 is kankara matti, he also witness to the Inquest conducted by L.W.29/D.M.G.N.Prasada Rao at that time Inspector of Police, village elders and panchayatdars were also present and Inquest Report was drafted and the Panchayatdars opined that the deceased died due to setting ablaze and that on the same day at the request of
Police, he/P.W.1 went to Police Station and Inspector of Police requested her and L.W.17/Gokada Adavinaidu to act as mediators and in their presence.
9.3.P.W.1 further stated that Accused No.1 confessed the commission of offence and the Police drafted confession statement in their presence and
Accused No.1 further stated that Accused No.1 have kept the bike No.AP 39
FU 3678, pipe, bottle and match box used for commission of offence at his house and stated that Accused No.1 would show and Ex.P.5 is therelevant portion of confession statement and in pursuance confession, Accused No.1 lead them to his house at Jodumeraka and showed the bike, pipe, bottle and match box and Ex.P.6 is relevant portion of confession statement and Ex.P.7 is seizure report and that M.O.13 is bike No.AP 39 FU 3678 and that M.O.14 is pipe and M.O.15 is bottle and that M.O.16 is match box.
9.4. During his cross-examination by the learned Counsel for the 1st accused, P.W.1 admitted that he has not mentioned that at what time he went to scene of offence and how much time he spent at scene of offence. Even though he did not state the time particulars, but the same cannot be considered as a serious lapse since his role is regarding recording the extra judicial confession of the 1st accused and surrendering him to the Police.
P.W.1 stated that he did not collect the bones and ash, but he added that clues team has collected. He further stated that he has not videographed and
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 8 Sessions Case 10/2024
photographed the scene of offence but he added that clues team has videographed and photographed the scene of offence. Even though P.W.1 did not do the said things, he clearly stated that the Clues Team did those things.
Hence, this Court did not find any fault with P.W.1 in not doing with those things. P.W.1 admitted that M.Os.2 to 4 are usually available in market, may be the said fact is true, but in the absence of any contra material by the accused, this Court is unable to convince with the contention of the accused that they are planted or set up for this case. P.W.1 admitted that he visited the scene of offence at the first instance as the accused took him to the scene of offence later on informed to the police about the scene of offence and he also admitted that it is mentioned in Ex.P.8 that by the time he and accused and
Inspector of Police reached the scene of offence the clues team was already there and he added that by the time they reached scene of offence clues team also came to the scene of offence and he also admitted that fingerprints were not obtained by clues team on material objects. According to P.W.1, he drafted the mediators report/Ex.P.7. P.W.1 admitted that date is not mentioned beneath the signatures of the accused in Ex.P.8. Though the date is not mentioned underneath the signature, in view of the consistent evidence of P.W.1, this Court did not find that the non-mentioning the date is fatal to the case of prosecution since the entire episode took place two or three days after the death of the deceased.
9.5.During his cross-examination by the learned Counsel for the 2nd accused, he admitted in Ex.P.1 he mentioned that the 1st accused killed the deceased as there is illicit intimacy with one Demudu of
Bheemannadorapalem. Relying on this admission, the learned Counsel for
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 9 Sessions Case 10/2024
the 2nd accused submitted that there is no illegal intimacy in between the accused 1 and 2 at any time and that this accused is not at all responsible for the killing of deceased by the 1st accused and the 1st accused might have killed the deceased suspecting her fidelity and intimacy with a person by name
Demudu of Bheemannadorapalem village. This Court finds force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the 2nd accused since at the earliest point of time, P.W.1 mentioned the reason for killing of deceased by 1st accused for her intimacy with another person, but not because of any alleged intimacy in between the 1st and the 2nd accused. Hence, from this admission of P.W.1, this Court holds that the 2nd accused cannot be fastened with any liability in the offence.
10.The co-traveler of the deceased to whom the deceased used to report about the harassment caused by the 1st accused was examined by the prosecution as P.W.2,who stated that he is a private employee and that about 2 ½ years back, he used reside at Oppangi village and that he and the deceased used to travel by bus from their village to Rajam and that the deceased used to work in Bakery shop at Rajam, thereafter, the deceased called him and informed that she got married to a person by name
Nagaraju/Accused No.1 and thereafter 1st accused and deceased lived happily for some time and gave birth to one child by name Yeswanth and later the deceased informed that Accused No.1 developed illicit intimacy with the 2nd accused, and that the deceased informed him that Accused No.1 used to harass her and that about 2 ½ years back, he came to know that deceased died and Accused No.1 caused the death of the deceased and accused confessed the commission of offence before P.W.1 and that L.W.3/Jodu
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 10 Sessions Case 10/2024
Ramulamma performed the marriage of Accused No.1 with the deceased and after the marriage, the deceased used to work in bakery shop at Kothavalasa and that he/P.W.2 was examined by the Police and recorded his statement 10.1. During his cross-examination, P.W.2 stated that the deceased is his distant relative. The learned Counsel for the 1st accused argued that since in view of his relationship with the deceased, P.W.2 is speaking false. But, this Court is unable to convince with the said submission since there are catena of decisions which speak that mere relationship cannot be a ground to discard the evidence of a witness, unless the contra is proved or suspicious circumstances established by the Accused. He stated that he cannot say the names of the parents of the deceased. Being a relative of deceased, P.W.1 might have known the names of parents of deceased, however, even not disclosing the name of parents of the deceased cannot be a ground to doubt the veracity in his testimony since he categorically stated that he came to know about the harassment caused by the 1st accused to the deceased.
10.2. During his cross-examination by the learned Counsel for the 2nd accused, he stated that the deceased used to inform him about the illicit intimacy of the accused 1 and 2 over phone, but he cannot say the phone numbers. If really, P.W.2 is informed by the deceased about the intimacy in between the accused, he being a relative would have reacted and would have, at least, informed the same to any of his other relatives or at least, he would have questioned the 1st accused, but he did not so, furthermore, he could not also give any mobile number through which he was informed by deceased about the alleged intimacy in between the accused 1 and 2. Hence, without there being any convincing and cogent material, this Court is unable to accept
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 11 Sessions Case 10/2024
the evidence of P.W.2 with regard to the alleged intimacy in between the accused 1 and 2 and merely basing on the said assertion of P.W.2, this Court is not inclined to held the 2nd accused is the root cause for the offence committed by the 1st accused.
11.The person in whose presence the marriage of the 1st accused and deceased was performed was examined by the prosecution as P.W.3, who stated that she is a Surpanch of Appannadorapalem village and that the 1st accused is her relative and the deceased belongs to Therlam village and that the 1st accused and deceased came to him and informed that they loved each other on that she, L.W.7/Jodu Narasimhulu, L.W.9/Chebrolu Ramu and some elders took them to Simhachalam and performed the marriage of the 1st accused and deceased about 8 years back and both of them lived happily for four years and deceased gave birth to a child by name Yeswanth and that the house of the 1st accused is near to her house and that after four years of their marriage, and that 1st accused fell in love with the 2nd accused, who is also reside near to her/P.W3 house and that after four years of the marriage disputes started between 1st accused and deceased and that the deceased used to work in sweet shop at Kothavalasa and the 1st accused did not work and demanded divorce from the deceased as the 1st accused intended to marry the 2nd accused.
11.1. P.W.3 further stated that deceased came to her and informed her about the disputes between the 1st accused and deceased and that the deceased informed her that she is not willing to give divorce and the 1st accused started physical and mental harassment and later deceased gave complaint to Police and that deceased used to come to her/P.W.3 regularly and
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 12 Sessions Case 10/2024
informed her about her family affairs and that several times panchayat was held and they counseled the 1st accused but of no use and that the deceased did not come to house on 28.01.2022 and they made the 1st accused to give complaint on 02.02.2022 and they all searched for deceased and that Chebrolu
Siva/L.W.5, Jodi Mutyala Rao (L.Ws.4 and 5) informed her that they saw the 1st accused and deceased while they were going on a bike, in the evening hours of 28.01.2022 at Girijala junction and that the 1st Accused confessed the commission of offence before P.W.1 and that she was examined by the Police and she also gave her statement before Magistrate and she was present at the time of Inquest.
11.2During her cross-examination by the learned Counsel for the 1st accused, P.W.3 stated that she stated that about two months prior to the death of the deceased, she gave police report against the 1st accused and the
Police admonished the 1st accused. She stated that she was present when the 1st accused gave complaint regarding the missing of the deceased to the Police.
11.3. During her cross-examination by the learned Counsel for the 2nd accused, P.W.3, upon confrontation of her 161, Cr.P.C. statement, which is marked as Ex.D.1, wherein, it was mentioned that :
“సు�మారు� రెం�డు� సు�వత్స�రుము�ల నుం��డి నాగరాజు త్సనుం భారు� భీమునుం�దొరువలసు గ్రా� మానికి చెం�దినుం దేము�డు� తో అక్ర"ము సు�బం�ధం� పెట్టు�' కొని తిరిగి చు�నుం�ట్టు�- అనుం�మానుం� పెట్టు�' కొని ఇరు�వురు0 గొడువల� పడు�త్స��డేవారు�. దాని కారుణము�గ్రా ఇద్ద9రికీ మునుంసు;రు'<ల� వచ్చా>యి. ”
But,she denied the same and hence the contradiction though marked for the accused is of no avail. According to P.W.3 a panchayat was convened about four years back as regards the alleged illegal intimacy in between the accused 1 and 2, however, she made it clear that for the said panchayat the 2nd accused was not called. When the alleged panchayat is purported to be held to enquire
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 13 Sessions Case 10/2024
about the alleged intimacy in between the accused 1 and 2, the non-calling of 2nd accused, against whom a severe allegation is attributed, creates a doubt in the mind of the Court since P.W.3 did not make any venture even at least mention the names of the so called gentlemen mediators who held the so called panchayat. Hence, this Court is unable to place reliance on the version of P.W.3 with regard to holding of panchayat to discuss or enquire about the alleged illegal intimacy in between the accused 1 and 2, accordingly, this
Court is not inclined to attach any liability to the 2nd accused in the crime.
12.The prosecution also examined the person, in whose presence the marriage of 1st accused and deceased was performed and also to prove the harassment caused by the 1st accused to the deceased so also present at the time of inquest, as P.W.4, who stated that he is a resident of Jodimeraka village and he is running a cell point at Kothavalasa and he knows both the accused and the deceased and that the deceased belong to Therlam village.
P.W.3, L.W.7/Jodu Narasimhulu, L.W.9/Chebrolu Ramu and some elders took 1st accused and deceased to Simhachalam and performed their marriage about 8 years back and that 1st accused and the deceased lived happily for four years and deceased gave birth to a child by name Yeswanth and thereafter, 1st accused fell in love with the 2nd accused and that after four years of the marriage disputes started between 1st accused and deceased and that the deceased used to work in sweet shop at Kothavalasa and 1st accused did not work and demanded divorce from the deceased as 1st accused intended to marry the 2nd accused and he further stated that the 1st accused started physical and mental harassment and later deceased gave complaint to Police.
Several times panchayat was held and elders counseled 1st accused but of no
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 14 Sessions Case 10/2024
use and that on 29.01.2022, he came to know that the deceased was missing and he went to P.W.3 and informed her that while he was at Kothavalasa Car stand on road leading to Vizianagaram then 1st accused came there on his
M.O.13/Scooty and deceased came there and both went on scooty towards
Vizianagaram and subsequently Accused No.1 gave missing complaint to
Police and 1st accused confessed the commission of offence before P.W.1 and in in pursuance of confession 1st accused lead them to scene of offence and he was examined by the Police and he also gave his statement before Magistrate and he was present at the time of Inquest.
12.1. During his cross-examination by the learned Counsel for the 1st accused, P.W.4 stated that stated that he is a ward member since three years under the control of P.W.3 and also stated that he cannot say the name of sweet shop in which the deceased used to work. P.W.4 though unable to say the name of the sweet shop in which the deceased was working prior to her death cannot be a ground to discard his entire evidence. Except the suggestions, which are denied by the witness, the 1st accused could not fetch any material in his favour.
12.2. During his cross-examination by the learned Counsel for the 2nd accused, P.W.4 stated that he did not inform to parents of deceased about her marriage and death and according to him P.W.3 and elders performed the marriage of the 1st accused and deceased at Simhachalam, but he does not know the date of their marriage. His 161, Cr.P.C. statement is confronted to him, wherein it was mentioned as follows:
“సు�మారు� రెం�డు� సు�వత్స�రుము�ల నుం��డి నాగరాజు త్సనుం భారు� భీమునుం�దొరువలసు అనే వ�కిA తో అక్ర"ము సు�బం�ధం� పెట్టు�' కొని తిరిగి గ్రా� మానికి చెం�దినుం దేము�డు� అనుం�మానుం� పెట్టు�' కొని ఇరు�వురు0 గొడువల� పడు�త్స��డేవారు�. దాని చు�నుం�ట్టు�- కారుణము�గ్రా ఇద్ద9రికీ మునుంసు;రు'<ల� వచ్చి> మాట్టు-ము0ట్టు లేక్ర��డా ఒకే ఇ�టిలో
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 15 Sessions Case 10/2024
వేరేగ్రా ఉం�డేవారు�. వారు� త్సరు�చు� గొడువల� పడు�చు��డుడు� నేనుం�, సురు;�చ్ అముM/ రాము�లముM, గీత్సల దేవి, మురి కొ�త్స ము�దిమి లేని పోని అనుం�మానాల� పెట్టు�' కోవద్ద9ని నాగరాజునుం� ము�ద్దలిం�చ్చినాము�. ”
P.W.4 though admitted the said statement, which marked as Ex.D.2, it is no way helpful to the accused, since, the said statement of P.W.4 amply proves strain relation in between the 1st accused and the deceased and from the above statement, an adverse inference can be drawn regarding the ‘motive’ of the accused to get rid of her for the reason he is suspecting the character and fidelity of the deceased.
13.The person who witnessed the 1st accused took away the deceased lastly was examined by the prosecution as P.W.5, who stated that he is a resident of Jodimeraka village and he is an Auto Rickshaw driver and that he knows both the accused and the deceased and that the deceased belong to
Therlam village. P.W.3, L.W.7/Jodu Narasimhulu, L.W.9/Chebrolu Ramu and some elders took 1st Accused and deceased to Simhachalam and performed their marriage about 8 years back and both 1st Accused and the deceased lived happily for four years and deceased gave birth to a child by name
Yeswanth and that after four years of their marriage, 1st Accused fell in love with the 2nd accused and thereafter disputes started between 1st Accused and deceased and that deceased used to work in sweet shop at Kothavalasa and 1st
Accused did not work and demanded divorce from the deceased as he intended to marry the 2nd accused. P.W.5 further stated that 1st accused started physical and mental harassment, later deceased gave complaint to
Police and that several times panchayat was held and elders counseled the 1st accused, but of no use and that on 29.01.2022, he/P.W.5 came to know that the deceased was missing and he went to P.W.3 and informed her that on
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 16 Sessions Case 10/2024
28.01.2022 at about 07:30 p.m., while he was at Kirana shop, Girijala junction, then 1st accused came there on his Scooty and deceased came there and both went on scooty towards Vizianagaram and thereafter the 1st accused gave missing complaint to Police and that the 1st accused confessed the commission of offence before P.W.1 and in pursuance of confession, the 1st accused lead them to the scene of offence and he was examined by the Police and he also gave his statement before Magistrate and that he was present at the time of Inquest.
13.1. The entire cross-examination of P.W.5 is very similar to that of the cross-examination of P.W.4, hence, discussing again would be nothing but a futile exercise. However, it can be concluded that even though P.Ws.4 and 5 were cross-examined by the learned Counsel for the 1st accused nothing worthwhile could be elicited in favour of the 1st accused. Similarly, the evidence of P.Ws.5 and 6 is not at all sufficient to connect the 2nd accused with the offence committed by the 1st accused and this Court did not find any ground from the evidence of P.Ws.4 and 5 that the 2nd accused is the root cause for the death of the deceased. However, upon confronting his 161,
Cr.P.C. statement, P.W.5 and the same is marked as Ex.D.3, wherein it was mentioned that:
“నాగరాజు, నా వదినుం పై లేని పోనీ అనుం�మానాల� పెట్టు�' కొని నా అనుం�య్య� సు�బం�ధం� పెట్టు�' కొని భీమునుం�దొరుపాలెం� గ్రా� మానికి చెం�దినుం దేము�డు� అనుం� తిడు�త్స0 కొడు�త్స0 తిరు�గ��ద్దని ఆమెతో సు�మారు� రెం�డు� సు�వత్స�రుము�ల ఉం�ట్టు�నా�డు�, ఈ విషయ్యమై మా గ్రా� ము సురు;�చ్ జోడు� రాము�లముM, చేబ్రోa ల� శివ, గీత్సల దేవి మురికొ�త్స ము�ది ప�చ్చాయ్యతీ పెటి' మా అనుం�య్య� నాగరాజునుం� గటి'గ్రా తిటి'నారు�. ఈ క్ర"ము�లో మా అనుం�య్య� మా వదినుంతో మాట్టు ము�తి లేక్ర��డా ... ”
But, P.W.5 denied the said statement, however, a perusal of the said statement, it is clear that both the 1st accused and deceased have no cordial relations and the 1st accused used to scold her on the premise of ‘illicit
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 17 Sessions Case 10/2024
intimacy’, which also leads to draw an adverse inference against that the 1st accused inimical disposed of against the deceased and waiting for an opportunity to get rid off. Hence, though the accused sought to rely on
Ex.D.3, the same is no way helpful to him since, in Ex.D.3, it is clear that there are strained relations in between the accused and the deceased.
14.The prosecution examined one of the residents of
Ardhannapalem village as P.W.6, who stated that the 1st accused and deceased lived happily for four years and deceased gave birth to a son by name
Yeswanth. He pleaded ignorance regarding the reasons for the quarrels in between the 1st accused and the deceased. He also stated that he does not know anything about the case. Hence, the learned Public Prosecutor declared the witness hostile and cross-examined him, but during his cross- examination, nothing worthwhile could be elicited in favour of the prosecution theory, as such, the evidence of P.W.6 is of no avail to the case of prosecution.
15.The prosecution examined the shop owner, who witnessed the deceased on 28.01.2022 at her shop, as P.W.7, but she stated that on 30.01.2022 evening the 1st accused came to her and told her that the deceased was not found and he gave complaint to the Police, except that she did not state anything, as such, the learned Public Prosecutor declared her hostile and cross-examined her, but nothing worthwhile could be elicited. However, during her cross-examination by the learned Counsel for the 1st accused, she stated that she went to the Police Station after four or five days after the incident and that she did not see the CCTV footage. During her cross- examination by the learned Counsel for the 2nd accused, she denied that she stated before the Police as in Ex.D.4, wherein it was mentioned that:
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 18 Sessions Case 10/2024
“తే. 28.01.2022 ది శు�క్ర"వారు� రాతిf ముgత్స�రాల� లక్ష్మిi డు0�టీ దిగి వసు�k �డుగ్రా కొత్సkవలసు కారు- స్టాం' �డు� ద్దగmరిలో నాగరాజు బం�డి ఎకిo�చు�కొని విజయ్యనుంగరు� రోడు�r లో ” వెళ్ళuట్టు� మా సురు;�చుముMక్ర� చెంప;గ్రా నాక్ర� సురు;�చుముM దాvరా తెలింసినుంది
Though P.W.7 denied the statement and though P.W.7 turned hostile, still the content in the above statement goes to show that the 1st accused was the person with whom lastly the deceased moved. Hence, though the contradiction in the statement of P.W.7 was got marked by the accused, it has no much importance and basing on the same, the accused cannot plead innocence and exemption.
16.The person to whom the deceased informed about the harassment caused by the 1st accused towards her as P.W.8, who stated that about three months prior to the death, the deceased came to her and informed that the 1st accused is harassing her and he developed illicit intimacy with another woman and further stated that on 02.02.2022, the 1st accused came to her house and informed that the deceased was missing and further informed that he gave report to the Police and she further stated that the 1st accused asked her to say before the Police that the deceased came along with one person wearing helmet and deceased along with that person left that place, but she did not accept the request of the 1st accused and later the 1st accused called her husband and also requested the same to her husband, for which, her husband also did not agree and that on 04.02.2022, she came to know through her husband that the deceased died. The learned Public Prosecutor declared the witness hostile and cross-examined her wherein she admitted that she stated before the Police that two-to-three times she called the 1st accused scolded him for his behaviour and that the 1st accused harass the deceased to give divorce.
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 19 Sessions Case 10/2024
16.1. During her cross-examination by the learned Counsel for the 1st accused, P.W.8 stated that she never went to the house of the deceased and the 1st accused and admitted that she came to know the death of deceased through P.W.3. Even though the evidence of P.W.8 was declared hostile by the learned Public Prosecutor, still the fact remains for consideration from her evidence is that she was asked by the accused to say before the Police that the ‘deceased came along with one person wearing helmet and deceased along with that person left that place...’, which clearly manifests the intention of the accused to eliminate the deceased.
17.The brother of the deceased was examined by the prosecution as
P.W.9, who stated that he is a resident of Vuddavolu village and he is a carpenter and that the deceased is his sister and she was given in marriage with the 1st accused about 8 years prior to her death and their marriage was performed with the acceptance of their family and after the marriage, his sister gave birth to male child and that deceased used to come to their house and that she informed that 1st accused developed illicit intimacy with the 2nd accused and then they consoled deceased and sent her back to matrimonial house and that he came to know about the death of his deceased sister on 04.02.2022 through his wife, after coming to know the same, he and his brother went to the village, there, on enquiry with the villagers, they informed him that on 28.01.2022, when his sister was returning back from sweet shop, 1st accused picked her on his bike and took her to the cashew tope and burnt her and that he was examined by the Police and recorded his statement.
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 20 Sessions Case 10/2024
17.1. During his cross-examination by the learned Counsel for the 1st accused, P.W.9 stated that he has no personal knowledge about the incident and he came to know about the incident through P.W.3, hence, he can be construed as a hearsay evidence. Of course, merely on the ground of hearsay, the entire evidence of witness cannot be thrown aside.
17.2. During his cross-examination by the learned Counsel for the 2nd accused, P.W.9 stated that his family did not attend the marriage of the 1st accused and the deceased. According to him, deceased came to their house for twice or thrice and informed about the illicit intimacy of the 1st accused with the 2nd accused prior to giving birth to child. This version of P.W.9 is different from the prosecution theory since according to the prosecution, both deceased and 1st accused lead happy marital life for four years and gave birth to male child during that period. If really, there is any illicit intimacy in between accused 1 and 2 even prior to the birth of the child, the disputes would have been arose even prior to the birth of the child but not after the birth of the child. Hence, merely relying on the evidence of P.W.9 regarding the illicit intimacy, in view of inconsistency, as stated supra, this Court is unable to accept the alleged illicit intimacy in between the accused 1 and 2, which is the sole reason for the 1st accused to kill the deceased and this Court has no hesitation to hold that the prosecution failed to prove the alleged illicit intimacy in between the accused 1 and 2 even through the evidence of P.W.9.
18.The prosecution examined the maternal aunt of the 2nd accused as P.W.10 who stated that she is having a scooty bearing registration No.AP 39 FU 3678 and that in the year 2022, the Police took away her vehicle stating that the Inspector of Police directed to bring her vehicle and she does not
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 21 Sessions Case 10/2024
remember the exact date, except that she did not state anything about the case, hence the learned Public Prosecutor declared her hostile and cross- examined her, but nothing worthwhile could be fetched in favour of prosecution theory, as such, the evidence of P.W.10 is of no avail to the case of prosecution.
19.The person from the 1st accused took petrol in a half-a-liter bottle was examined as P.W.11, who stated that he is a resident of Kothavalasa and he is working a Company and he knows 1st accused being the resident of his neighbouring village and that on 29.01.2022, the 1st accused approached him and asked her to give petrol as his vehicle was stopped due to lack of petrol and accordingly, he had given petrol in a half-a-liter plastic bottle/M.O.15 bottle and later he came to know in the evening that the 1st accused killed his wife.
19.1. During his cross-examination by the learned Counsel for the
Accused he stated that he took petrol from his vehicle AP 31 BB 5868 and gave to the 1st accused and his vehicle was not seized by the Police. He denied that he is deposing false at the instance of the Police.
20.The person who exhibited the CCTV footage was examined by the prosecution as P.W.12, who stated that he is working as a Constable in
I.T.Core Team and that on 16.03.2022, Inspector of Police called him and instructed him to show the CCTV footage to the Constable on that he showed the CCTV footage and he downloaded the same in the Compact Disc and handed over the same (Exs.P.3 and P.4).
20.1. During his cross-examination by the learned Counsel for the 1st accused, he stated that there is no written requisition from the Inspector of
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 22 Sessions Case 10/2024
Police, but he added that there is a requisition to the D.I.G. Technical service.
He further stated that he has not given the full footage of CCTV and that he downloaded the CCTV footage timing mentioned by the Inspector of Police and he downloaded the CCTV footage from 07:00 to 08:00 p.m., but denied that the CCTV footage was tampered. According to P.W.12, as per the directions of the higher Authorities, he downloaded the CCTV footage, but he has not filed any document to show that as per the directions of the higher
Authorities, he did so. Even though no copy of order is produced by P.W.12 with regard to the directions given to him to download the CCTV footage, still his evidence inspires confidence for the reason that whatever he did is only basing on either oral written directions of his Officials, hence, this Court felt that even though he was cross-examined by the learned Defence Counsel, nothing favourable material could be elicited for the accused.
21.The prosecution examined the son of the deceased and other 1st accused as P.W.13, and, the Court after putting basic questions to ascertain that whether he is able to give rational answers, since he is a minor, considered as a competent witness. He stated that he is staying with the 1st accused and his mother died while he was studying II standard and his aunt informed him that his mother died and P.W.10 took him to the Hospital for the purpose of his collection blood samples. During his cross-examination by the learned Counsel for the 1st accused he stated that during life time of his mother, his parents took him to out and there were no disputes in between them. No cross-examination was done by the learned Counsel for the 2nd accused to this witness.
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 23 Sessions Case 10/2024
22.The prosecution examined one of the inquest panchayatdars as
P.W.14, who stated that that he is a resident of Jodimeraka village and he knows the accused and deceased and the deceased died in the month of
January, 2022 and he came to know about the death of the deceased on 04.02.2022, immediately, he went to the scene of offence and as per the request of the Village Revenue Officer, he acted as mediator for inquest panchanama and hair and ash was collected in their presence and the deceased died of burnings and Ex.P.11/Inquest Panchanama 22.1. During his cross-examination by the learned Counsel for the 1st accused, he stated that on his own, he went to the scene of offence after he came to know about the death of the deceased and by that time, he reached the scene of offence, Village Revenue Officer, Sarpanch and Ward Members were also present there, he denied that he did not go to the scene of offence and deposing false. Except the suggestion, which is denied by P.W.14, the accused could not fetch and favourable material from the cross-examination of
P.W.14, hence the evidence of P.W.14 is trustworthy regarding his presence at the time of inquest and acting as one of the inquest panchayatdars.
23.One of the mediators for the CCTV footages was examined by the prosecution as P.W.15, who stated that he is working as Village Revenue
Officer, Ganisettypalem and that previously, he worked as Village Revenue
Officer, Uttaravalli village and that on 16.03.2022 as per the instructions of their Mandal Revenue Officer, he and L.W.25/Patnala Madhu went to
Kothavalasa Police Station at about 11:30 a.m. by that time P.W.3, ward members were present, the Inspector of Police requested to act as mediators for CCTV footages, then Inspector of Police informed that CCTV footages are
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 24 Sessions Case 10/2024
received from DIG office and first CCTV footage Dt.28.01.2022 between 07:00 and 08:00 p.m. shows a lady wearing white top and green pant going from
Vizag road to Vizianagaram road at Kothavalasa junction and she is holding white cover and 2nd CCTV footage also shows a lady is near Police control room and 3rd footage is at Girijala junction in that a lady going on scooty as a pillion rider and the lady is same in all the three CCTV footages and they identified the said lady as wife of the 1st accused and then CCTV footages were stored in C.Ds under Exs.P.3 and P.4 and one of the persons in computer room of Police Station drafted the Ex.P.12/mediators report, wherein, he signed.
23.1. During his cross-examination by the learned Counsel for the 1st accused, P.W.15 stated that there is no written requisition from the Mandal
Revenue Officer and by the time when he reached the Police Station, P.Ws.3 and 7 were also present. Though it could be elicited from P.W.15 that he does not know what conversation took place in between P.W.3 and Police, this
Court unable to find the same as serious lapse for prosecution for the reason even by the time when P.W.15 went to the Police Station, P.W.3 was present, and, he is not supposed to disclose the things that were happened in his absence. Even though he pleaded ignorance as regards the name of the person, who drafted Ex.P.12, there is no any strict rule that a person who signs any document must know the name of the Scribe and the person who signs on a document should know the contents but not the name of the scribe or author. Hence, the non-awareness of the name of the scribe of Ex.P.12 by
P.W.15 cannot be a ground to doubt the veracity in his testimony. Though
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 25 Sessions Case 10/2024
P.W.15 stated that no male person is found in the CCTV footages, basing on the same, the entire case of the prosecution cannot be brushed aside.
24.The prosecution examined the Deputy Civil Surgeon as P.W.16, who stated that he received requisition from the Inspector of Police and accordingly, he collected the blood samples from P.W.13 for DNA examination and handed over the same to the Inspector of Police. During his cross- examination by the learned Counsel for the 1st accused, he denied that he has not collected the blood samples from P.W.13 and he is deposing false at the instance of Police. Though he denied the said suggestion, but stated that he did not receive any written requisition. Of course, the mode of requisition as to whether it is oral or written, the fact remains for consideration is that
P.W.16 collected the blood samples from P.W.13. To that extent, the evidence of P.W.16 is believable since the 1st accused could not elicit anything in his favour.
25.The Assistant Director, R.F.S.L., who conducted bio-chemical examination was examined by the prosecution as P.W.17, who stated that she received requisition from Sub Divisional Police Officer, Visakhapatnam in
Cr.No.24/2022 of Kothavalasa Police Station and that on on 16.02.2022, she received sealed box through PC.572 accordingly, she conducted bio-Chemical and Immunological examination and she issued Ex.P.13/R.F.S.L report and as per her examination Human blood is detected on item No.1, Blood group of blood stains on item No.1 is of “A” and that the Blood is not detected on item
No.2 which is received as control for items No.1. During her cross- examination by the learned Counsel for the 1st Accused, she denied that she
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 26 Sessions Case 10/2024
did not conduct the examination as per the standards and she is deposing false at the instance of the Police.
26.The Tahsildar, who conducted the inquest over the dead body was examined by the Prosecution as P.W.18, who stated that he is working as
Tahsildar, Lakkavarapu Kota and previously, he worked as Tahsildar,
Kothavalasa and that on 04.02.2022, he received requisition from Station
House Officer, Kothavalasa to conduct Inquest over dead body of deceased at about 12:00 noon, he visited scene of offence, by the time he reached scene of offence, Inspector of Police and other Police personnel and some others were present there, the scene of offence is a cashew tope at the road leading to
Vizianagaram from Kothavalasa and he observed burnt ash and some bones resembling human body and that he also found metal bangles and metal
Mettelu and single patti and one piece of cloth of a wearing apparel of a woman and seven feet from there he also observed long hair M.O.7 and M.O.8 are hair. M.O.9 and M.O.10 are blood stain stones and that Mos.1 to 6 were also seized in his presence and he also examined blood relatives and he conducted Inquest in the presence of P.W.4 and 5, blood relatives of the deceased and Village Revenue Officers and that the mediators opined that the death due to setting fire, Ex.P.11 is Inquest Report and that he also enquired the last seen person and mentioned in Col.No.4 of Ex.P.11.
26.1. During his cross-examination by the learned Counsel for the 1st accused, he stated that there is no dead body present at the scene of offence, but he added that burnt ashes of body was there. According to him, by the time he reached the scene of offence, clues team was present. Even though
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 27 Sessions Case 10/2024
P.W.18 was cross-examined, nothing worthwhile could be elicited to disbelieve his testimony regarding the conducting of inquest.
27.The prosecution examined the Investigating Officer, who visited the scene of offence, observed the same and got photographed the same as
P.W.19, who stated that that he is working as Sub Inspector of Police, Special branch, Parvathipuram and that previously, he worked as Sub Inspector of
Police, Clues team, Vizianagaram and that on 04.02.2022, on oral instructions of Station House Officer, Kothavalasa, he visited scene of offence along with his team, he reached scene of offence at 10:00 a.m., his team observed that there is pit in a cashew tope and they found ashes and examined minutely ash and some bones resembling human body and that he also found metal bangles and metal Mettelu and single patti and one piece of cloth of a wearing apparel of a woman and seven feet from there and he also observed long hair and that he seized M.Os.1 to 10 and they also photographed and videographed the scene of offence and that Ex.P.14 is the list of material object seized by them at the time inspection of scene of offence and handed over same to Station
House Officer, Kothavalasa/ L.W.32.
27.1. During his cross-examination by the learned Counsel for the 1st accused, P.W19 denied that he has not received any oral instructions of
Station House Officer, Kothavalasa nor he visited scene of offence along with my team nor he observed that there is pit in a cashew tope nor found ashes and examined minutely ash and some bones resembling human body nor he also found metal bangles and metal Mettelu and single patti and one piece of cloth of a wearing apparel of a woman nor he observed long hair nor seized
M.Os.1 to 10 nor got photographed and videographed the scene of offence not
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 28 Sessions Case 10/2024
drafted Ex.P.14 nor handed over same to the Inspector of Police. Even though P.W.19 was put to much cross-examination by the learned Counsel for the 1st accused, nothing worthwhile could be elicited to discard his testimony with regard to visiting of scene of offence, observing the same and seizure of material objects etc., on the other hand, the evidence of P.W.19 inspires confidence regarding the complicity of the 1st accused. But, a perusal of overall evidence of P.W.19 he did not even a single word against the 2nd accused. Hence, as discussed supra, this Court could able to conclude that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the 2nd accused even through the evidence of P.W.19.
28.The prosecution examined the Investigating Officer, who did investigation and filed the charge sheet as P.W.20, who stated that he is working as Inspector of Police, Special Branch, Anakapalli and previously, he worked as Inspector of Police, Kothavalasa from 20.06.2021 to 15.07.2023 and that on 30.01.2022, the 1st accused came to Police Station and gave report basing on the same he registered case in Cr.No.24/2022 U/s women missing and issued Ex.P.15/F.I.R. and deputed to L.W.31/ASI, Kothavalasa for investigation and that on 04.02.2022 at 09:30 a.m., P.W.1 came to Police
Station gave report along with the 1st accused with statement basing on the same, he altered the section of law from women missing into 302, 201 of I.P.C and submitted Ex.P.16/altered FIR to the Court and all concerned and later he secured the mediators P.W.1, L.W.17/Adavi Naidu, the 1st accused lead them to scene of offence and showed the scene of offence and he examined the scene of offence with the help of clues team and prepared scene observation
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 29 Sessions Case 10/2024
report/Ex.P.8 and photographed and videographed the scene of offence and seized M.Os.1 to 10.
28.1. P.W.20 further stated that he examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and recorded their statements and he sent requisition to P.W.18 to conduct Inquest and
P.W.18 conducted Inquest and that on 04.02.2022 at 03:00 p.m., he arrested the 1st accused in the presence of mediators P.W.1, L.W.17/Adavi Naidu and recorded the confession statement of the 1st accused at Police Station and the 1st accused lead them to the his house at Jodumeraka village and there he/P.W.20 seized M.Os.13 to 16 and drafted mediators report/Ex.P.7 and the 1st accused was produced before the Court for Judicial remand and basing on confession of the 1st accused on 05.02.2022, on receipt of information, he secured the presence of P.W.1 and L.W.17/Adavi Naidu along with P.W.3 went to Gidijala junction, there they found the 2nd accused and on interrogation, she revealed her name and confession of commission of offence and after recording the confession statement of the 2nd accused in the presence of
P.W.1, L.W.17/Adavi Naidu, P.W.3 and after informing the grounds of arrest, they arrested the 2nd accused and produced before the Court.
28.2. P.W.20 further stated that on 06.02.2022, he secured P.W.6,
P.W.7, and 8 and recorded their statements and that on 07.02.2022, he secured the presence of Chebrolu Ramu, Urli Pothu Raju (L.Ws.9 and 10) and
P.W.8 and recorded their statements and that on 08.02.2022, he secured
P.W.9, L.W.13/Sarapinti Veerachari and recorded their statements and that on 09.02.2022, he secured P.Ws.10 and 11 and recorded their statements and later on, he filed a memo for recording the statements of witnesses and sent
M.O.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11 for F.S.L. Amaravathi and he also sent to M.O.9 to
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 30 Sessions Case 10/2024
R.F.S.L, Visakhapatnam and that P.W.16 collected blood samples of P.W.13 for
D.N.A test and Ex.P.17 is D.N.A report of P.W.13 and that on 16.03.2022, on her requisition technical team, Vijayawada to Station House Officer,
Kothavalasa sent three mails, on receipt of mails, he secured the presence of
P.W.3, P.W.15, L.W.24/Golla Gopi Nagaraju and identified and sent to F.S.L,
Amaravathi. Ex.P.18 is the certificate for CCTV footage/ Ex.P.12.
28.3. P.W.20 further stated that he secured the presence of mediators
P.W.3, P.W.7, P.W.15, L.W.24/Golla Gopi Naga Raju, L.W.25/Patnala Madhu and in their presence, he verified the CCTV footages, in the first footage at about 07:26 p.m. of 28.01.2022 and that he found one lady coming from
Visakhapatnam to Vizianagaram road wearing white top and green chunni, green pant with a white cover in her hand and that in the 2nd CCTV footage which was at Kothavalasa junction at unused Police sub-control room junction at about 07:30 p.m., the same lady was found walking from junction to
Vizianagaram road, and in the 3rd CCTV footage at Gidijala junction at about 07:34 p.m. the same lady was found coming from Gidijala junction to
Vizianagaram, and he found one male person taking the lady on his scooty bearing registration No.AP 39 FU 3678.
28.4. P.W.20 further stated that the lady who was found in CCTV footages identified by P.W.3 and P.W.7 as the deceased and all the CCTV footages were saved in C.D/ Exs.P.3 and P.4 and in the presence of mediators
P.W.3, P.W.7, P.W.15, L.W.24/Naga Raju, and L.W.25/Madhu and C.Ds were forwarded for F.S.L Amaravathi for analysis and he examined P.W.12 recorded his statement and that on 20.03.2022, he examined P.W.16 and recorded his
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 31 Sessions Case 10/2024
statement and that after receipt of R.F.S.L and F.S.L, DNA and final opinion reports and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.
28.5. During his cross-examination by the learned Counsel for the 1st accused, he has not filed the missing complaint given by the 1st accused in this
Court, but the same cannot be considered as a serious lapse for the prosecution for the reason the said report by the 1st accused seems to be escape from his liability and hence even if there is any such report, the same has no much importance. P.W.20 categorically stated that there are no eyewitnesses in this case, but he added that this case depends on the ‘last seen’ theory. He stated that he did not examine the parents of the deceased,
Owner of the sweet shop and the so called persons with the name Demudu and Venkat, but this Court did not find any fault on the part of the
Investigating Officer in non-examining the parents of the deceased and the above persons in view of the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 4 before whom the 1st accused confessed his guilt and P.W.4 who had seen the 1st accused and the deceased lastly.
28.6. P.W.20 stated that he did not seize any Call Date Record. This part of omission on the part of the Investigating Officer disproves the contention of the prosecution that only because of illicit intimacy of the 1st accused with the 2nd accused, he eliminated the deceased at her instance. If really, the 2nd accused instigated the 1st accused or both of them conspired, definitely, the prosecution would have seized the call data record to prove the alleged conspiracy in between them or provocation by the 2nd accused to the 1st accused to remove the deceased from their way. However, the admission of
P.W.20 with regard to non-seizure of finger prints nor blood samples cannot be
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 32 Sessions Case 10/2024
said to be fatal to the case of prosecution for the reason that even by the time when the death of the deceased came to the light, there remained only ash of her. In such circumstances, the seizure or blood samples or finger prints is not possible.
28.7. P.W.20 though admitted that he obtained signature of the accused but did not note the date on the confession statement and mediators report. In view of the consistent and convincing evidence of P.W.1 with regard to the confession of the accused with regard to his complicity before P.W.1, the mere non-noting of the date underneath the signature of the 1st accused does not take away the case of prosecution. It might be true that Ex.P.3 and 4 do not show the deceased was getting on and getting down from the bike, but in view of the consistent evidence of P.W.4 as regards to going of deceased with the 1st accused, mere non-visibility of her in Exs.P.3 and P.4 does not cut the prosecution in its entirety. Furthermore, except suggesting by the learned
Counsel for the 1st accused to P.W.20 that Exs.P.3 and P.4 are fabricated, the accused did not make any attempt to get them examined by the Expert if really he felt that they were tampered or fabricated. Hence, this Court is of firm view that when the prosecution could able to prove Exs.P.3 and P.4, it is
for the accused to disprove the same, but he failed to do so, thereby this Court
is unable to convince with argument of the learned Counsel for the 1st accused in this dimension.
28.8. Even though P.W.20 admitted in his cross-examination that he did not mention the make colour of M.O.13/Bike, this Court did not find any seriousness in the said omission since the going of deceased on the bike was well-established by the prosecution through the evidence of P.W.4. P.W.20
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 33 Sessions Case 10/2024
further admitted that there was a prior complaint with regard to the disputes in between the 1st accused and the deceased. This part of admission goes in adverse to the case of the prosecution since even from suggestion, the 1st accused himself exposed the differences in between him and the deceased, which, in normal circumstances, drives even a common lane to raise a suspicion against the 1st accused to kill his wife.
28.9. P.W.20 admitted though admitted that he did not file the photographs of scene of offence, but asserted that he filed the Compact Disc (CD). This Court did not find any lacuna on the part of the prosecution in not filing the photographs when the CD to that extent is filed, further, it is also not the case of the 1st accused that the contents in the said Compact Disc did not show the place of offence, moreover, he made it clear that by the time, when he reached the place of offence, the Clues Team took the videographed the scene of offence. According to P.W.20, there are two scenes of offences and hence the burnt material was secured from the two places. P.W.20 admitted that the clues team did not mention the length of the hair and size of bangles in the report. May be said fact is true, but it does not alone sufficient to destroy the case of prosecution for the reason the accused failed to place any contra material that the said piece of hair and bangles do not pertain to the deceased.
28.10. Even though it could be elicited from P.W.20 that there is no mention in Exs.P.7 and P.12 as to who drafted the same. But, as discussed in preceding paragraphs, mere non mentioning the name of the author or scribe cannot be a sole ground to disbelieve these couple of documents since the contents prevail over the description of the Author, since the accused failed to
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 34 Sessions Case 10/2024
place any convincing material before the Court to show that the contents of these two documents are not correct. Thus, even though P.W.20 was put to a lengthy cross-examination by the learned Counsel for the 1st accused, nothing worthwhile could be eliciting fetching the case of the 1st accused, therefore, this Court has no hesitation to hold that through the evidence of P.W.20, the prosecution could able to prove the complicity of the 1st accused in commission of the offence.
28.11. During his cross-examination by the learned Counsel for the 2nd accused, P.W.20 admitted that in Ex.P.2, the name of the 2nd accused is inserted in between the gaps, this part of admission clearly emphasizes the innocence of the 2nd accused so also her inclusion in this case. Hence, basing on this admission of P.W.20 apart from the above discussion in preceding paragraphs as regards the role of the 2nd accused, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the 2nd accused is not at all responsible for the death of the deceased and it can be safely concluded that even through the evidence of
P.W.20, the prosecution failed to prove anything against the 2nd accused in the present crime.
29.The prosecution examined the learned Magistrate, who recorded 164, Cr.P.C. statements of witnesses as P.W.21, who stated that she is working as Junior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem and previously, she worked as Judicial
Magistrate of I Class, Kothavalasa from July, 2022 to April, 2023 and that the
Inspector of Police, Kothavalasa filed a memo for recording 164, Cr.P.C.
statements of P.Ws.3 to 8 and L.W.7/Jodu Narasimhulu, accordingly, she recorded the statements of P.Ws 3 to 8 and L.W.7/Jodu Narasimhulu. She further stated that P.W.3 stated before her that 1st accused is her relative’s son
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 35 Sessions Case 10/2024
and his wife Laxmi belongs to Therlam mandal and they performed your marriage eight years ago at Simhachalam when both of them loved each other and lived happily for three years and were blessed with a son/Yeswanth who is aged about 07 years, thereafter, 1st accused got acquaintance with the 2nd accused and thereafter 1st accused did not look after his wife and son and you used to demand her to give divorce and whenever she refused, the 1st accused used to beat her and the matter was placed in Police Station, but, there is no change and that on 29th January between 09:00 a.m and 10:00 a.m. the wife of the 1st accused was found missing and that on 30th January, complaint was given to police wherein 1st accused also signed and that she/P.W.3 got a doubt against the 1st accused and she told the same to Inspector of Police, after three days, the 1st accused confessed before P.W.1 that he took Laxmi to a cashew nut garden which is in Pedagoppu, beat her with a big stone and set her, fire by poring petrol 29.1. P.W.21 further stated that P.W.4 stated before her that the 1st accused loved Laxmi who belongs to Therlam mandal and they performed their marriage they had a boy and after the birth of their boy, they lived happily for few days, the 1st accused got acquaintance with Mounika/Accused
No.2 of you and demanded Laxmi to give divorce, when she refused the 1st accused used to harassed her by not providing food and when the matter was placed before the elders they also told the 1st accused to look after his wife and son and that when the 1st accused was taking Laxmi on a bike and later he/P.W.4 came to know that the Laxmi was found missing and he also came to know that a case was registered and he told to P.W.3 that day before the previous night, he saw the 1st accused took Laxmi on a bike and in the
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 36 Sessions Case 10/2024
meanwhile, the 1st accused also confessed before P.W.1 that he committed murder, by pouring petrol and later Police arrested him.
29.2. P.W.21 further stated that P.W.5 stated before her that 1st accused is his nearest relative, he was married 8 years ago 1st accused and his wife happily for few days, later, he got acquaintance with Mounika/Accused
No.2 of you and ever since, there were disputes between 1st accused and his wife and one day Accused No.2 went to house of the 1st accused and told that she was three month pregnant and that Laxmi refused for the same and the elders convinced them and send them, but no change and that the 1st accused tried to get rid of Laxmi and that he/P.W.5 found when the 1st accused took
Laxmi on 28th and that he got a doubt that why he was taking her, since they had no talking terms and later Laxmi was found missing and everyone got doubt on the 1st accused and later the 1st accused confessed before P.W.1 that he committed murder and burnt the body.
29.3. P.W.21 further stated that P.W.6 stated before her that on 28.01.2022, Laxmi was found missing and they thought she was somewhere and later on 31st, Mounika/Accused No.2 came to him and asked a doubt that what will be the punishment if someone committed murder and then he told that to his knowledge, it might be eight years and that she again asked him whether it is possible to come out, by paying amount, on that, he stated that it is possible if the offences are petty offences and then, she told that she called him to ask the said doubt and later, he/P.W.6 came to know that Laxmi died and the 1st accused murdered her.
29.4. P.W.21 further stated that that P.W.7 stated before her that the marriage 1st accused was performed with Laxmi about eight years back and
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 37 Sessions Case 10/2024
both of them lived happily for some and blessed with a son and after the birth of their son, the 1st accused told that he would marry Mounika/Accused No.2 and the 1st accused did not want Laxmi and also asked Laxmi to give divorce and when she refused, the 1st accused made allegations against her and that 10 days prior to her death, Laxmi came to her/P.W.7 with a curry and cried and she stated the 1st accused was following her up to her shop and she got a doubt on him and that on the night of 28th at about 07:00 p.m., the 1st accused took Laxmi from her shop on his bike and on 30th, the 1st accused came to her and told that Laxmi went away with a person, on that, she asked the 1st accused how she could go, by leaving her son and searched for her on surrounding places and after two hours, the 1st accused again came and told that Laxmi was in Sujatha Nagar and she went there on a bike of a person and after they gave complaint, the Police came and they took the 1st accused to Sujatha Nagar to enquiry, prior to that the 1st accused told the persons at
Sujatha Nagar to say lies to police, but, they recorded his conversation and sent the same to the president Ramulamma through Whatsapp and that the
President made her to listen the said conversation and that the 1st accused tried to say lies likewise and that the 2nd accused asked Rajesh what will be the punishment if someone committed murder, said Rajesh is her brother-in- law and he informed the same to her and P.W.3 and on that, they got suspicion and the 2nd accused demanded the 1st Accused through phone to marry her and same was informed to her by the 1st Accused and even though, she tried to convince him, but, he did not listen and that the 1st Accused committed murder on 28th night, by taking Laxmi to Pedda Goppu and he confessed the same before P.W.1.
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 38 Sessions Case 10/2024
29.5. P.W.21 further stated that P.W.8 stated before her that on 02.02.2022 her elder brother Naga Raju came to her house and asked her to tell that Laxmi came to her house along with a boy and also told that the
Laxmi was found missing and his villagers would she complaint against him and then she asked him how she could say when Laxmi did not come to her house and asked 1st Accused to call her husband, for which, the 1st Accused called her (P.W.8) husband through phone and also asked him to say that
Laxmi came to their house for which, her husband also asked the 1st Accused how could they say and he husband recorded the conversation and sent the same to P.W.3 and that two to three months prior to that day, Laxmi came to her house and she cried and told her that the 1st accused demanded her to give divorce and that after Laxmi went away, the 1st accused called her on suspicion and asked her whether Laxmi came to her house, on that, she scolded him, on that he stopped to talk to her and the 1st accused had illicit intimacy with another girl/Accused No.2 and that on 04.02.2022 she came to through P.W.3 that the Laxmi was died and she also came to know that the 1st accused murdered her. Exs.P.19 to P.24 are the 164, Cr.P.C. Statements
PW.3 to P.W.8.
29.6. During her cross-examination by the learned Counsel for the accused, she denied that the witnesses did not give statement before her voluntarily, except that nothing could be elicited from her cross-examination in support of the accused.
30.Thus, from the above evidence, when the prosecution could prove that the death of the deceased is a homicidal death, it has to be seen that how far the prosecution could able to establish that that the accused are
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 39 Sessions Case 10/2024
responsible for the death of the deceased. It was already discussed in the preceding paragraphs that the 2nd accused has no role in the crime and she is not responsible for the death of the deceased.
31.Admittedly, there is no direct witness to the offence and the entire case of prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence, where, the burden is heavily on the prosecution to establish the links. In the case on hand, admittedly, the prosecution did not examine the parents of the deceased, but examined the brother of the deceased, who clearly stated about the disputes in between the 1st accused and the deceased. The other witnesses examined by the prosecution also stated that the deceased used to report to them that the 1st accused was harassing her. Further, even from the evidence of P.W.20, it is clear that the deceased lodged a report against the 1st accused for harassing her. Thus, it is clear that there is strain relationship in between the 1st accused and the deceased, which amply establishes the ‘motive’ on the part of the 1st accused to get rid of the deceased.
31.Now, it has to be seen how far the prosecution could able to prove that the 1st accused killed the deceased. At the first instance, the 1st accused went to P.W.1 and made Extra Judicial Confession before him and P.W.1 along with his report surrendered the 1st accused before the Police Officials. As per the report of P.W.1, after making confession before him, the 1st accused took
P.W.1 to the scene of offence and showed the place where he burnt the deceased. Later, after surrendering the 1st accused before the Police, the 1st accused lead the Police and P.W.1 to the scene of offence, which clearly shows that the scene of offence is in exclusive knowledge of the accused, hence, it can
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 40 Sessions Case 10/2024
be clearly said that the first chain of circumstances was clearly established by the prosecution.
31.1. In this regard, the prosecution heavily relied on the evidence of
P.W.4, who stated that “… while I was at Kothavalasa car stand on road, leading to Vizianagaram, then A.1 came there on his Scooty and deceased came there and both went on scooty towards Vizianagaram”. This version of P.W.4 shows that the deceased lastly went along with the 1st accused, as such, the 1st accused is alone responsible to answer as to what happened to the deceased.
The learned Public Prosecutor while drawing the attention of this Court to ‘last seen theory’ submitted that the entire evidence of prosecution witnesses clearly shows that the 1st accused had disputes with the 1st accused and intended to remove her and thus he hatched up a plan to kill her and in execution of the same, he made the deceased to believe him and took her to the isolated place and killed her. In support of her contentions, the learned
Public Prosecutor relied on a judgment reported in State of Andhra
Pradesh Vs. Patchimala Vigneswarudu @ Viganna 1, wherein, it was observed that:
“(i) Admittedly, the deceased was the wife of the accused and they had strained relations.
(ii) …
(iii) …
(iv) The deceased and accused were last seen in the mid night (intervening night of 5.8.2001 and 6.8.2001) going together from cinema hall after night show, towards village Ayinavilli.
18. In our opinion, above chain of circumstances is complete and leads only to the conclusion that it was the accused/respondent and he alone, who committed the murder of the deceased.” 1 Criminal Appeal NO.436 of 2008, dt.06.01.2016 of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 41 Sessions Case 10/2024
The above judgment clearly shows that the accused and deceased were jointly last seen. The ratio in the above judgment aptly applied to the case on hand since, in the instant case, the 1st accused himself took P.W.1 to the scene of offence at the first instance and showed the same and the same is corroborated with his Extra Judicial Confession. Moreover, as per the evidence of P.W.4 when he was at Kothavalasa car stand, the 1st accused came there on his scooty and deceased also came there and both of them went on scooty towards Vizianagaram and thus, both the 1st accused and deceased were lastly seen by P.W.4 and as per the evidence of P.W.7, she and other villagers have seen the 1st accused and deceased in the CCTV footages and identified them-+, which amply proves that the accused took the deceased in the evening time and thereafter she was found missing and hence in view of the ratio laid down in the above case law, this Court has no hesitation to arrive at conclusion that the 1st accused alone committed the murder of the deceased and the prosecution could able to establish the chain of circumstances.
32.While cross-examining the Investigating Officers, the learned
Defence Counsels pointed out certain discrepancies. For which, the learned
Public Prosecutor submitted that even assuming for a while that there is discrepancy with regard to non-mentioning the names of the authors and non- noting of dates underneath the signatures, it does not cut the root of the prosecution case. In this context, it is apt to refer a judgment in Rajesh
Yadav and another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 2 wherein it was observed that:
2 Crl.Appeal 339, 340 of 2014, dt.04.02.2022 of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 42 Sessions Case 10/2024
“It is settled proposition of Law that even if there are some omissions, contradictions and discrepancies, the entire evidence cannot be disregarded. After exercising care and caution and sifting through the evidence to separate truth from untruth, exaggeration and improvements, the Court comes to a conclusion as to whether the residuary evidence is sufficient to convict the accused. Thus, undue importance should not be attached to omissions, contradictions and discrepancies, which do not go to the heart of the matter and shake the basic version of the prosecution’s witnesses. ”
Thus, in view of the ratio laid down in the above case even though there are certain discrepancies are there in the case of prosecution, in view of the other consistent and corroborative evidence available on record, this Court holds that those discrepancies are trivial in nature and they do not shake the case of prosecution from its root.
33.Now, coming to the role of the 2nd accused, the prosecution witnesses i.e. P.Ws.3 to 5 and 7 though asserted that the 2nd accused is behind the crime since both the accused are having illicit intimacy, but in their 161,
Cr.P.C. statements, which are marked as Exs.D.1 to D.4, they have stated differently, which disproves the contention of the prosecution that the 2nd accused connived in the offence and hence this Court is of considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove guilt of the 2nd accused.
34.As seen from the material, the accused were charged for the offence under Section 201 of IPC, but as seen from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, this Court did not find any sufficient material for the reason that the entire case of the prosecution rests on circumstances evidence and there is no ocular witness for the offence and also to say that the accused caused disappearance of evidence or giving false information to screen the offender, moreover, the 1st accused himself informed the commission of offence to P.W.1 and took him to the place of offence. Assuming for a while that the 1st accused
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 43 Sessions Case 10/2024
had such an ill-motive, he would have mislead P.W.1 and would have taken him to different place, but not to the exact crime scene. Thus, this Court is of firm view that the accused had no intention to cause disappearance, as such, the accused are not liable for the charge under Section 201 of IPC.
35.During arguments, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the because of the acts of the 1st accused, the son of the deceased lost the affection of his mother and became victim by the acts of the accused and hence they are entitled for victim compensation and relied on judgment reported in Shaik Ahamad Basha Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 3 wherein it was observed that:
“Section 357-A of Cr.P.C. was introduced by Act 5 of 2009 with the object of enabling the Court to direct the State to pay compensation to the victim where the compensation under Sections 357, Cr.P.C. is not adequate... ”
The learned Public Prosecutor also referred to copy of the Government Order of Andhra Pradesh State in G.O.Ms.No.43, Dt.15.04.2015. A perusal of the said G.O, at para No.7, procedure for grant of compensation is mentioned, under which, it is mentioned that “whenever a recommendation is made by the Court or on an application by any victim or his/her dependent under Sub
Section (2) of Section 357-A of the Act to the District Legal Services
Authority, the District Legal Services Authority shall examine the case and verify the contents of the claim with regard to the loss or injury caused to the victim arising out of the reported criminal activity and the District Legal
Services Authority, Vizianagaram may call for any other relevant information necessary in order to determine genuineness of the claims. After verifying the claim and on enquiry, shall award compensation, within two months, in 3 Criminal Appeal 930/2010 of Andhra High Court, dt.14.03.2016
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 44 Sessions Case 10/2024
accordance with the provisions of the Scheme. Considering the submissions of the learned Public Prosecutor so also in view of the ratio in Shaik Ahamad
Basha case (supra) and the G.O.Ms.No.43, Dt.15.04.2015, even though the accused was not found to be the guilt of the offence, but in view of admitted fact of death of deceased, which is a great peril to P.W.13/Yaswanth, this
Court is inclined to order for victim compensation to him. Even though the prosecution could not establish the guilt of the accused as discussed supra, but it does not a bar to award to Victim Compensation as enumerated in
Section 357-A of Cr.P.C., Accordingly, this point is answered. Accordingly, this point is answered.
32.In the result, the 1st accused is found not guilty for the charge under Section 201 of IPC and accordingly he is acquitted for the said charge, however, the 1st accused is found guilty for the charge under Section 302 of
IPC and accordingly he is convicted under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C. for the said charge. Whereas, the 2nd accused is found not guilty for the charges under Section 302 and 201 of IPC and accordingly, she is acquitted under
Section 235(1) for the said charges. The bail bonds of the 2nd accused, if any, shall stand canceled. The 2nd accused is directed to execute bond for her due appearance before the Hon’ble High Court in the event of appeal by the
Prosecution.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this 03 rd day of April, 2024.
Sd/- B.Sai Kalyan Chakravathi
Sessions Judge,
Vizianagaram 03.04.2025 (At bench):
The 1st accused is questioned with regard to quantum of sentence, he pleaded mercy. Hence, taking into consideration the gravity of offence and
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 45 Sessions Case 10/2024
nature of crime, the 1st accused is sentenced to imprisonment for life and also to pay fine of ₹.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only), in default of payment of fine, to suffer Simple Imprisonment for one month for the charge under
Section 302 of IPC. The remand period of the accused, if any, shall be given set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.,
M.O.13/Bike shall be returned subject to production of necessary documents and M.Os.1 to 12 and 14 to 16 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.
The 1st Accused is appraised of his right to appeal before the Hon’ble
High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi and free legal aid.
The son of the deceased i.e. P.W.13/Jodu Yaswanth, who is the victim, is at liberty to file an appropriate application before the District Legal
Services Authority, Vizianagaram, for grant of victim compensation under
Andhra Pradesh Victim Compensation Scheme, 2015 under Section 357-A of
Cr.P.C.,
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 03 rd day of April, 2024
Sd/- B.Sai Kalyan Chakravathi
Sessions Judge,
Vizianagaram.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For Prosecution: For Defence: P.W.1:Golla Venkata Raja Ravindra P.W.2:Pogasati Ganesh P.W.3:Jodu Ramulamma P.W.4:Chebrolu Siva P.W.5:Jodi Mutyala Rao P.W.6:Geethala Rajesh P.W.7:Geethala Devi P.W.8:Yesalapau Rani P.W.9:Sarapinti Eswara Rao
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 46 Sessions Case 10/2024
P.W.10:Bobbadi LakshmiNone P.W.11:Togara Sunitha P.W.12:G.Jagadeswara Rao, IT Core Team P.W.13:Jodu Yeswanth P.W.14:Chebrolu Mahesh P.W.15:Patnala Madhu, V.R.O., P.W.16:Dr.V.Koteswara Rao, Deputy Civil Surgeon. P.W.17::K.Geetha Madhuri, Assistant Director P.W.18::D.M.G.N.Prasada Rao, Tahsildar P.W.19::S.V.R.Raju, Inspector of Police P.W.20::S.Bala Surya Rao, Inspector of Police P.W.21: :S.Surya Kiran Sri, Junior Civil
Judge
Exhibits Marked For Prosecution: Ex.P.1:Report given by P.W.1 Ex.P.2:Extra judicial confession Ex.P.3:Compact Disc Ex.P.4:Compact Disc Ex.P.5:Relevant portion in confession statement Ex.P.6:Relevant portion in confession statement Ex.P.7:Mediators’ report Ex.P.8:Scene observation report Ex.P.9:161, Cr.P.C.Statement of P.W.6 Ex.P.10161, Cr.P.C.Statement of P.W.10 Ex.P.11Inquest panchanama Ex.P.12Mediators’ report
Ex.P.13R.F.S.L.Report Ex.P.14Letter Ex.P.15F.I.R. Ex.P.16Altered FIR Ex.P.17:D.N.A Report Ex.P.18Certificate for CCTV footage. Ex.P.19161, Cr.P.C.Statement of P.W.3 Ex.P.20161, Cr.P.C.Statement of P.W.4 Ex.P.21161, Cr.P.C.Statement of P.W.5 Ex.P.22161, Cr.P.C.Statement of P.W.6 Ex.P.23161, Cr.P.C.Statement of P.W.7 Ex.P.24161, Cr.P.C.Statement of P.W.8
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 47 Sessions Case 10/2024
For Accused:
Ex.D.1:Relevant portion in 161, Cr.P.C.Statement of P.W.3 Ex.D.2:Relevant portion in 161, Cr.P.C.Statement of P.W.4 Ex.D.3:Relevant portion in 161, Cr.P.C.Statement of P.W.5 Ex.D.4:Relevant portion in 161, Cr.P.C.Statement of P.W.7
Material Objects Marked
M.O.1: Bones pieces M.O.2: Metal Bangles M.O.3: Kalla Mattelu M.O.4: Burnt Kallu pattilu M.O.5: Ash at first scene of offence M.O.6: Half-burnt green cloth piece M.O.7: Half burnt hair M.O.8: Hair M.O.9: Three stone M.O.10: Small stones (kankara raallu) M.O.11: Ash packet M.O.12: Kankara matti M.O.13: Bike M.O.14: Pipe M.O.15: Bottle M.O.16: Match Box
Sd/- B.Sai Kalyan Chakravathi
Sessions Judge,
Vizianagaram
Copy to the Registrar (Judicial), Hon’ble High Court of A.P. (By way of C.D.) Copy to the Superintendent of Police, Vizianagaram and Director of Prosecution (through Public Prosecutor, Sessions Court, Vizianagaram) Copy to the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Vizianagarammaternal
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 48 Sessions Case 10/2024
IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS JUDGE, VIZIANAGARAM
Present: Sri B.Sai Kalyan Chakravarthi,
Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram
Thursday, the 03rd day of April, 2025
Sessions Case No.10/2024
1 Nameof:Staterepresented bytheInspector of Police, Kothavalasa Police Station Complainant 2 Name of the Accused1. Jodu Naga Raju, S/o late Demudu, aged 33 years, ST Mannemdora by caste, Jodumeraka village, Appannadorapalem Panchayat, Kothavalasa Mandal.
2 Eeti Mounika, D/o late Beemraju, 23 years, ST Mannemdora by caste, rest ditto.
3Date of offence:28.01.2022
4.Place of offence:at Peda Goppu in Survey No.120 of Baligattam revenue village outskirts of Ardhannapalem village of Kothavalasa Mandal in an isolated area covered with deep bushes 5Date of complaint:04.02.2022 6Date of apprehension:24.04.2024 7Whether the Accused is in :On bail jail or bail 8Date of commencement of :16.07.2024 trial 9Date of close of trial:07.02.2025
10.Date of Sentence of :03.04.2025 Judgment
EXPLANATION FOR DELAY IN SESSIONS COURT:- After receipt of the record from Committal Court, the case was numbered as Sessions Case 08/2024. On 04.07.2024 charge framed and trial schedule was fixed and the Trial was started on 23.10.2024. P.Ws.1 to 21 were examined and Ex.P.1 to P.24 and Exs.D.1 to D.4 were marked and M.Os.1 to 16 were exhibited. The Accused is examined U/s 313 Cr.P.C on 29.11.2024 and 20.02.2025. Arguments heard finally on 25.03.2025. Judgment was pronounced on 03.04.2025, thus, there is no delay.
Sd/- B.Sai Kalyan Chakravathi i
Sessions Judge,
Vizianagaram
IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS JUDGE, VIZIANAGARAM
Present: Sri B.Sai Kalyan Chakravarthi,
Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram
Thursday, the 03rd day of April, 2025
Sessions Case No.10/2024
1 Nameof: StaterepresentedbytheInspector of ComplainantPolice, Kothavalasa Police Station 2 Name of the Accused1. Jodu Naga Raju, S/o late Demudu, aged 33 years, ST Mannemdora by caste, Jodumeraka village,AppannadorapalemPanchayat, Kothavalasa Mandal. 2 Eeti Mounika, D/o late Beemraju, 23 years, ST Mannemdora by caste, rest ditto.
:302 of IPC: Punishment for murder 3 Charges 201 of IPC:Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender.
4 Plea of Accused: Not Guilty 5 Finding of the Judge1st accused is guilty for the charge U/s.302 of IPC and both accused are found not guilty for charge U/s.201 of IPC. 2nd Accused is not guilty of charge U/s.302 of IPC. : In the result, 1st accused is found not
6. Sentence or Order guilty for the charge under Section 201 of IPC and accordingly he is acquitted for the said charge, however, the 1st accused is found guilty for the charge under Section 302 of IPC and accordingly he is convicted under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C. for the said charge. Whereas, the 2nd accused is found not guilty for the charges under Section 302 and 201 of IPC and accordingly, she is acquitted under Section 235(1) for the said charges. The bail bonds of the 2nd accused, if any, shall stand canceled. The 2nd accused is directed to execute bond for her due appearance before the Hon’ble High Court in the event of appeal by the Prosecution. the 1st accused is sentenced to imprisonment for life and also to pay fine of ₹.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only), in default of payment of fine, to suffer Simple Imprisonment for one month for the charge under Section 302 of IPC. The remand period of the accused, if any, shall be given set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C., 7 Prosecution conducted by: Public Prosecutor, Vizianagaram 8 Defence conducted: Sri T h a t a R a j u Advocate for the 1st Accused
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 2 Sessions Case 10/2024
Sri Ch.Praveen Raju, Advocate for the 2nd Accused
J U D G M E N T
01. The Inspector of Police of Kothavalasa Police Station laid charge sheet against the Accused alleging that on 28.01.2022 at Peda
Goppu in Survey No.120 of Baligattam revenue village outskirts of
Ardhannapalem village of Kothavalasa Mandal in an isolated area covered with deep bushes, the 1st accused committed murder of his wife/Jodu
Lakshmi (herein after referred as “deceased”), in Crime No.24/2022of
Kothavalasa Police Station under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC.
02.The brief case of the Prosecution is that the deceased is the legally wedded wife of the 1st accused and that on 30.01.2022, the 1st accused lodged a report with the Police stating that his wife/Jodu
Lakshmi went to Sairam Sweets shop for attending work on 28.01.2022 at about 08:30 a.m. but she did not return even late night, upon that he went to the shop and asked the Owner of the said shop, for which, the
Owner informed that after completion of work, she went away, then, he searched for his wife in all possible places, but could not trace, hence lodged the report with the Police for taking action and at the time of her missing, she wore green colour dress. Basing on the said report, S.Bala
Surya Rao/Inspector of Police (L.W.32) registered a case in
Cr.No.24/2022 as “woman missing” and entrusted further investigation to A.Rahiman, ASI (L.W.31).
2.1.On 04.02.2022, Galla Venkata Raju (L.W.1) went to
Kothavalasa Police Station along with the 1st accused and presented a
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 3 Sessions Case 10/2024
report along with Extra Judicial Confession Statement of 1st accused and surrendered him before the Police. The report of Venkata Raju is that on 04.02.2022 at about 07:00 hours, while he was at his residence/Kothavalasa, the 1st accused came to his house and stated that he married one Lakshmi about 08 years back and they were blessed with a male child, thereafter, he suspected her fidelity and thereby he intended to eliminate her and marry the 2nd accused and when he asked his wife for divorce, she refused, at last, he intended to kill her in order to marry the 2nd accused, and, accordingly, on 28.01.2022 night at about 07:30 p.m. he took away his wife from car stand of Kothavalasa on his scooty bearing registration No.AP 39 FU 3678 by making her to believe that they are going to Teertham at Gollapeta, and proceeded towards
Peda Goppu down by Survey No.120 of Baligattam revenue village of
Ardhannapalem village outskirts and took her to an isolated place in deep bushes and killed her by beating her with a stone on the back side of her head for 3 or 4 times indiscriminately after throwing her over the stones, then, he kept sticks and palmyrah leaves over her dead body and poured petrol and lit fire and then he went away to Gollapeta village and on the next day i.e. on 29.01.2022 morning while, he went to same place, he found that some skull was not burnt properly, upon that he took away the same with some distance and lit fire by pouring petrol, by which time, he heard sound of a motorcycle, on that, he afraid that his identity would be revealed, and fled away from there, later, he went to his village and informed the village elders that his wife was found missing and then, he lodged a missing complaint at Kothavalasa Police station on
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 4 Sessions Case 10/2024
30.01.2022. Thus, basing on the report of Venkata Raju, the Inspector of
Police (L.W.32) altered the FIR from “Woman missing” to Section 302 and 201 of IPC on 04.02.2022. During the course of investigation, the
Inspector of Police arrested the accused in the presence of mediators viz.,
Venkata Raju (L.W.1) and Gokada Adavi Naidu (L.W.17) since the accused voluntarily confessed the offence in their presence that he killed his wife with pre-plan and conspiracy of the 2nd accused. The
Investigating Officer examined the witnesses and recorded their statements and produced the 1st accused before the Court for judicial remand. As a part of investigation, the Investigating Officer visited the scene of offence, observed the same, prepared rough sketch, and, thereafter on credible information, he along with the above referred mediators went to Gidijala village and apprehended the 2nd accused and she also voluntarily confessed the offence and arrested her and produced her before the Court for judicial remand. K.Geetha Madhuri, Scientific
Officer, RFSL, Visakhapatnam (L.W.27) analyzed the blood samples and gave her report opining that in item Nos.1 and 2, human blood is detected with “A” group blood. The Mandal Executive Magistrate,
Kothavalasa (L.W.29) conducted inquest over the dead body, at the time of inquest, the 1st accused was also present, after inquest, forwarded the dead body for postmortem examination and after receipt of medical reports and after completion of investigation, he filed the charge sheet.
03.The learned Magistrate, took cognizance for the charges under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC videP.R.C.No.01/2023 committed the case to the Court of Sessions since the offence under Sections 302 IPC is
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 5 Sessions Case 10/2024
exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, duly furnishing the case papers to the Accused.
04.After appearance of the Accused before this Court, they were examined and charges under Sections 302 and 201 are framed against the accused and read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
05.During the trial, the prosecution in support of their case examined P.Ws 1 to 20, got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.24 and exhibited
M.Os.1 to 16.
06.After completion of the prosecution evidence, the Accused were examined under Sections 313 Cr.P.C., by putting the incriminating material in the evidence of prosecution witnesses against the Accused, for which, the Accused denied the same, and reported no defence evidence, but got marked Exs.D.1 to D.4.
07.Heard both sides.
08.Now, the points for determination are:
Whether the Prosecution could bring home the guilt of the accused for charges under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?
Point:
09.
Before adverting to the conclusion with regard to the point-in-
issue, it is apposite to refer to the oral and documentary evidence available onrecord In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined the Village Revenue Officer to whom the accused give extra judicial confession as P.W.1, who stated that he is working as V.R.O,
Relli village. On 04.02.2022 at about 07:00 a.m while he was at his home, the 1st accused came to his house and confessed the commission of offence and he
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 6 Sessions Case 10/2024
drafted extra judicial confession, wherein he/PW.1 and Accused No.1 signed and later on as per confession, Accused No.1 burnt the deceased in cashew tope of Baligattam village and he/P.W.1 asked Accused No.1 to show the place where he burnt the deceased, accordingly Accused No.1 took him to cashew tope of Baligattam village, there he/P.W.1 saw the burnt ash and bones from there, he/P.W.1 took Accused No.1 to Police Station and surrender before
Inspector of Police at about 09:30 a.m., he submitted Ex.P.2/extra judicial confession along with his Ex.P.1/report and he signed on both and he/P.W.1 informed same to our Tahsildar.
9.1.P.W.1 further stated that Accused No.1 took him/P.W.1, Gokada
Adavi Naidu/L.W. 17 and the Police to the scene of offence along with clues team, videographer and Accused No.1 explained the way how he committed the offence and shown them the place where Accused No.1 burnt the body and the Inspector of Police identified ashes at two places and at the first place, they observed ashes, 7 (Seven) bones, metal bangles, mattelu, kalla pattilu, and at the second place half burnt hair, normal hair, ashes and the second place is at a distance of 20 feet from the first place and that the Inspector of
Police also seized blood stained stones and that both the scene of offence were videographed and seized material object and drafted scene observation report and they signed on it.
9.2.P.W.1 further stated that that he identified Ex.P.3/videograph of the Ex.P.4/scene of offence and M.O.1 is bones pieces-7 and M.O.2 is two metal bangles and M.O.3 is “Kalu mattelu”, M.O.4 is burnt “kalu patti”,
M.O.5 is ash at first scene, M.O.6 is half burnt green cloth piece, M.O.7 is half burnt hair, M.O.8 is hair, M.O.9 is three stones, M.O.10 is small stones
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 7 Sessions Case 10/2024
(Kankara Rallu). M.O.11 is ash packet, M.O.12 is kankara matti, he also witness to the Inquest conducted by L.W.29/D.M.G.N.Prasada Rao at that time Inspector of Police, village elders and panchayatdars were also present and Inquest Report was drafted and the Panchayatdars opined that the deceased died due to setting ablaze and that on the same day at the request of
Police, he/P.W.1 went to Police Station and Inspector of Police requested her and L.W.17/Gokada Adavinaidu to act as mediators and in their presence.
9.3.P.W.1 further stated that Accused No.1 confessed the commission of offence and the Police drafted confession statement in their presence and
Accused No.1 further stated that Accused No.1 have kept the bike No.AP 39
FU 3678, pipe, bottle and match box used for commission of offence at his house and stated that Accused No.1 would show and Ex.P.5 is therelevant portion of confession statement and in pursuance confession, Accused No.1 lead them to his house at Jodumeraka and showed the bike, pipe, bottle and match box and Ex.P.6 is relevant portion of confession statement and Ex.P.7 is seizure report and that M.O.13 is bike No.AP 39 FU 3678 and that M.O.14 is pipe and M.O.15 is bottle and that M.O.16 is match box.
9.4. During his cross-examination by the learned Counsel for the 1st accused, P.W.1 admitted that he has not mentioned that at what time he went to scene of offence and how much time he spent at scene of offence. Even though he did not state the time particulars, but the same cannot be considered as a serious lapse since his role is regarding recording the extra judicial confession of the 1st accused and surrendering him to the Police.
P.W.1 stated that he did not collect the bones and ash, but he added that clues team has collected. He further stated that he has not videographed and
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 8 Sessions Case 10/2024
photographed the scene of offence but he added that clues team has videographed and photographed the scene of offence. Even though P.W.1 did not do the said things, he clearly stated that the Clues Team did those things.
Hence, this Court did not find any fault with P.W.1 in not doing with those things. P.W.1 admitted that M.Os.2 to 4 are usually available in market, may be the said fact is true, but in the absence of any contra material by the accused, this Court is unable to convince with the contention of the accused that they are planted or set up for this case. P.W.1 admitted that he visited the scene of offence at the first instance as the accused took him to the scene of offence later on informed to the police about the scene of offence and he also admitted that it is mentioned in Ex.P.8 that by the time he and accused and
Inspector of Police reached the scene of offence the clues team was already there and he added that by the time they reached scene of offence clues team also came to the scene of offence and he also admitted that fingerprints were not obtained by clues team on material objects. According to P.W.1, he drafted the mediators report/Ex.P.7. P.W.1 admitted that date is not mentioned beneath the signatures of the accused in Ex.P.8. Though the date is not mentioned underneath the signature, in view of the consistent evidence of P.W.1, this Court did not find that the non-mentioning the date is fatal to the case of prosecution since the entire episode took place two or three days after the death of the deceased.
9.5.During his cross-examination by the learned Counsel for the 2nd accused, he admitted in Ex.P.1 he mentioned that the 1st accused killed the deceased as there is illicit intimacy with one Demudu of
Bheemannadorapalem. Relying on this admission, the learned Counsel for
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 9 Sessions Case 10/2024
the 2nd accused submitted that there is no illegal intimacy in between the accused 1 and 2 at any time and that this accused is not at all responsible for the killing of deceased by the 1st accused and the 1st accused might have killed the deceased suspecting her fidelity and intimacy with a person by name
Demudu of Bheemannadorapalem village. This Court finds force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the 2nd accused since at the earliest point of time, P.W.1 mentioned the reason for killing of deceased by 1st accused for her intimacy with another person, but not because of any alleged intimacy in between the 1st and the 2nd accused. Hence, from this admission of P.W.1, this Court holds that the 2nd accused cannot be fastened with any liability in the offence.
10.The co-traveler of the deceased to whom the deceased used to report about the harassment caused by the 1st accused was examined by the prosecution as P.W.2,who stated that he is a private employee and that about 2 ½ years back, he used reside at Oppangi village and that he and the deceased used to travel by bus from their village to Rajam and that the deceased used to work in Bakery shop at Rajam, thereafter, the deceased called him and informed that she got married to a person by name
Nagaraju/Accused No.1 and thereafter 1st accused and deceased lived happily for some time and gave birth to one child by name Yeswanth and later the deceased informed that Accused No.1 developed illicit intimacy with the 2nd accused, and that the deceased informed him that Accused No.1 used to harass her and that about 2 ½ years back, he came to know that deceased died and Accused No.1 caused the death of the deceased and accused confessed the commission of offence before P.W.1 and that L.W.3/Jodu
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 10 Sessions Case 10/2024
Ramulamma performed the marriage of Accused No.1 with the deceased and after the marriage, the deceased used to work in bakery shop at Kothavalasa and that he/P.W.2 was examined by the Police and recorded his statement 10.1. During his cross-examination, P.W.2 stated that the deceased is his distant relative. The learned Counsel for the 1st accused argued that since in view of his relationship with the deceased, P.W.2 is speaking false. But, this Court is unable to convince with the said submission since there are catena of decisions which speak that mere relationship cannot be a ground to discard the evidence of a witness, unless the contra is proved or suspicious circumstances established by the Accused. He stated that he cannot say the names of the parents of the deceased. Being a relative of deceased, P.W.1 might have known the names of parents of deceased, however, even not disclosing the name of parents of the deceased cannot be a ground to doubt the veracity in his testimony since he categorically stated that he came to know about the harassment caused by the 1st accused to the deceased.
10.2. During his cross-examination by the learned Counsel for the 2nd accused, he stated that the deceased used to inform him about the illicit intimacy of the accused 1 and 2 over phone, but he cannot say the phone numbers. If really, P.W.2 is informed by the deceased about the intimacy in between the accused, he being a relative would have reacted and would have, at least, informed the same to any of his other relatives or at least, he would have questioned the 1st accused, but he did not so, furthermore, he could not also give any mobile number through which he was informed by deceased about the alleged intimacy in between the accused 1 and 2. Hence, without there being any convincing and cogent material, this Court is unable to accept
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 11 Sessions Case 10/2024
the evidence of P.W.2 with regard to the alleged intimacy in between the accused 1 and 2 and merely basing on the said assertion of P.W.2, this Court is not inclined to held the 2nd accused is the root cause for the offence committed by the 1st accused.
11.The person in whose presence the marriage of the 1st accused and deceased was performed was examined by the prosecution as P.W.3, who stated that she is a Surpanch of Appannadorapalem village and that the 1st accused is her relative and the deceased belongs to Therlam village and that the 1st accused and deceased came to him and informed that they loved each other on that she, L.W.7/Jodu Narasimhulu, L.W.9/Chebrolu Ramu and some elders took them to Simhachalam and performed the marriage of the 1st accused and deceased about 8 years back and both of them lived happily for four years and deceased gave birth to a child by name Yeswanth and that the house of the 1st accused is near to her house and that after four years of their marriage, and that 1st accused fell in love with the 2nd accused, who is also reside near to her/P.W3 house and that after four years of the marriage disputes started between 1st accused and deceased and that the deceased used to work in sweet shop at Kothavalasa and the 1st accused did not work and demanded divorce from the deceased as the 1st accused intended to marry the 2nd accused.
11.1. P.W.3 further stated that deceased came to her and informed her about the disputes between the 1st accused and deceased and that the deceased informed her that she is not willing to give divorce and the 1st accused started physical and mental harassment and later deceased gave complaint to Police and that deceased used to come to her/P.W.3 regularly and
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 12 Sessions Case 10/2024
informed her about her family affairs and that several times panchayat was held and they counseled the 1st accused but of no use and that the deceased did not come to house on 28.01.2022 and they made the 1st accused to give complaint on 02.02.2022 and they all searched for deceased and that Chebrolu
Siva/L.W.5, Jodi Mutyala Rao (L.Ws.4 and 5) informed her that they saw the 1st accused and deceased while they were going on a bike, in the evening hours of 28.01.2022 at Girijala junction and that the 1st Accused confessed the commission of offence before P.W.1 and that she was examined by the Police and she also gave her statement before Magistrate and she was present at the time of Inquest.
11.2During her cross-examination by the learned Counsel for the 1st accused, P.W.3 stated that she stated that about two months prior to the death of the deceased, she gave police report against the 1st accused and the
Police admonished the 1st accused. She stated that she was present when the 1st accused gave complaint regarding the missing of the deceased to the Police.
11.3. During her cross-examination by the learned Counsel for the 2nd accused, P.W.3, upon confrontation of her 161, Cr.P.C. statement, which is marked as Ex.D.1, wherein, it was mentioned that :
“సు�మారు� రెం�డు� సు�వత్స�రుము�ల నుం��డి నాగరాజు త్సనుం భారు� భీమునుం�దొరువలసు గ్రా� మానికి చెం�దినుం దేము�డు� తో అక్ర"ము సు�బం�ధం� పెట్టు�' కొని తిరిగి చు�నుం�ట్టు�- అనుం�మానుం� పెట్టు�' కొని ఇరు�వురు0 గొడువల� పడు�త్స��డేవారు�. దాని కారుణము�గ్రా ఇద్ద9రికీ మునుంసు;రు'<ల� వచ్చా>యి. ”
But,she denied the same and hence the contradiction though marked for the accused is of no avail. According to P.W.3 a panchayat was convened about four years back as regards the alleged illegal intimacy in between the accused 1 and 2, however, she made it clear that for the said panchayat the 2nd accused was not called. When the alleged panchayat is purported to be held to enquire
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 13 Sessions Case 10/2024
about the alleged intimacy in between the accused 1 and 2, the non-calling of 2nd accused, against whom a severe allegation is attributed, creates a doubt in the mind of the Court since P.W.3 did not make any venture even at least mention the names of the so called gentlemen mediators who held the so called panchayat. Hence, this Court is unable to place reliance on the version of P.W.3 with regard to holding of panchayat to discuss or enquire about the alleged illegal intimacy in between the accused 1 and 2, accordingly, this
Court is not inclined to attach any liability to the 2nd accused in the crime.
12.The prosecution also examined the person, in whose presence the marriage of 1st accused and deceased was performed and also to prove the harassment caused by the 1st accused to the deceased so also present at the time of inquest, as P.W.4, who stated that he is a resident of Jodimeraka village and he is running a cell point at Kothavalasa and he knows both the accused and the deceased and that the deceased belong to Therlam village.
P.W.3, L.W.7/Jodu Narasimhulu, L.W.9/Chebrolu Ramu and some elders took 1st accused and deceased to Simhachalam and performed their marriage about 8 years back and that 1st accused and the deceased lived happily for four years and deceased gave birth to a child by name Yeswanth and thereafter, 1st accused fell in love with the 2nd accused and that after four years of the marriage disputes started between 1st accused and deceased and that the deceased used to work in sweet shop at Kothavalasa and 1st accused did not work and demanded divorce from the deceased as 1st accused intended to marry the 2nd accused and he further stated that the 1st accused started physical and mental harassment and later deceased gave complaint to Police.
Several times panchayat was held and elders counseled 1st accused but of no
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 14 Sessions Case 10/2024
use and that on 29.01.2022, he came to know that the deceased was missing and he went to P.W.3 and informed her that while he was at Kothavalasa Car stand on road leading to Vizianagaram then 1st accused came there on his
M.O.13/Scooty and deceased came there and both went on scooty towards
Vizianagaram and subsequently Accused No.1 gave missing complaint to
Police and 1st accused confessed the commission of offence before P.W.1 and in in pursuance of confession 1st accused lead them to scene of offence and he was examined by the Police and he also gave his statement before Magistrate and he was present at the time of Inquest.
12.1. During his cross-examination by the learned Counsel for the 1st accused, P.W.4 stated that stated that he is a ward member since three years under the control of P.W.3 and also stated that he cannot say the name of sweet shop in which the deceased used to work. P.W.4 though unable to say the name of the sweet shop in which the deceased was working prior to her death cannot be a ground to discard his entire evidence. Except the suggestions, which are denied by the witness, the 1st accused could not fetch any material in his favour.
12.2. During his cross-examination by the learned Counsel for the 2nd accused, P.W.4 stated that he did not inform to parents of deceased about her marriage and death and according to him P.W.3 and elders performed the marriage of the 1st accused and deceased at Simhachalam, but he does not know the date of their marriage. His 161, Cr.P.C. statement is confronted to him, wherein it was mentioned as follows:
“సు�మారు� రెం�డు� సు�వత్స�రుము�ల నుం��డి నాగరాజు త్సనుం భారు� భీమునుం�దొరువలసు అనే వ�కిA తో అక్ర"ము సు�బం�ధం� పెట్టు�' కొని తిరిగి గ్రా� మానికి చెం�దినుం దేము�డు� అనుం�మానుం� పెట్టు�' కొని ఇరు�వురు0 గొడువల� పడు�త్స��డేవారు�. దాని చు�నుం�ట్టు�- కారుణము�గ్రా ఇద్ద9రికీ మునుంసు;రు'<ల� వచ్చి> మాట్టు-ము0ట్టు లేక్ర��డా ఒకే ఇ�టిలో
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 15 Sessions Case 10/2024
వేరేగ్రా ఉం�డేవారు�. వారు� త్సరు�చు� గొడువల� పడు�చు��డుడు� నేనుం�, సురు;�చ్ అముM/ రాము�లముM, గీత్సల దేవి, మురి కొ�త్స ము�దిమి లేని పోని అనుం�మానాల� పెట్టు�' కోవద్ద9ని నాగరాజునుం� ము�ద్దలిం�చ్చినాము�. ”
P.W.4 though admitted the said statement, which marked as Ex.D.2, it is no way helpful to the accused, since, the said statement of P.W.4 amply proves strain relation in between the 1st accused and the deceased and from the above statement, an adverse inference can be drawn regarding the ‘motive’ of the accused to get rid of her for the reason he is suspecting the character and fidelity of the deceased.
13.The person who witnessed the 1st accused took away the deceased lastly was examined by the prosecution as P.W.5, who stated that he is a resident of Jodimeraka village and he is an Auto Rickshaw driver and that he knows both the accused and the deceased and that the deceased belong to
Therlam village. P.W.3, L.W.7/Jodu Narasimhulu, L.W.9/Chebrolu Ramu and some elders took 1st Accused and deceased to Simhachalam and performed their marriage about 8 years back and both 1st Accused and the deceased lived happily for four years and deceased gave birth to a child by name
Yeswanth and that after four years of their marriage, 1st Accused fell in love with the 2nd accused and thereafter disputes started between 1st Accused and deceased and that deceased used to work in sweet shop at Kothavalasa and 1st
Accused did not work and demanded divorce from the deceased as he intended to marry the 2nd accused. P.W.5 further stated that 1st accused started physical and mental harassment, later deceased gave complaint to
Police and that several times panchayat was held and elders counseled the 1st accused, but of no use and that on 29.01.2022, he/P.W.5 came to know that the deceased was missing and he went to P.W.3 and informed her that on
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 16 Sessions Case 10/2024
28.01.2022 at about 07:30 p.m., while he was at Kirana shop, Girijala junction, then 1st accused came there on his Scooty and deceased came there and both went on scooty towards Vizianagaram and thereafter the 1st accused gave missing complaint to Police and that the 1st accused confessed the commission of offence before P.W.1 and in pursuance of confession, the 1st accused lead them to the scene of offence and he was examined by the Police and he also gave his statement before Magistrate and that he was present at the time of Inquest.
13.1. The entire cross-examination of P.W.5 is very similar to that of the cross-examination of P.W.4, hence, discussing again would be nothing but a futile exercise. However, it can be concluded that even though P.Ws.4 and 5 were cross-examined by the learned Counsel for the 1st accused nothing worthwhile could be elicited in favour of the 1st accused. Similarly, the evidence of P.Ws.5 and 6 is not at all sufficient to connect the 2nd accused with the offence committed by the 1st accused and this Court did not find any ground from the evidence of P.Ws.4 and 5 that the 2nd accused is the root cause for the death of the deceased. However, upon confronting his 161,
Cr.P.C. statement, P.W.5 and the same is marked as Ex.D.3, wherein it was mentioned that:
“నాగరాజు, నా వదినుం పై లేని పోనీ అనుం�మానాల� పెట్టు�' కొని నా అనుం�య్య� సు�బం�ధం� పెట్టు�' కొని భీమునుం�దొరుపాలెం� గ్రా� మానికి చెం�దినుం దేము�డు� అనుం� తిడు�త్స0 కొడు�త్స0 తిరు�గ��ద్దని ఆమెతో సు�మారు� రెం�డు� సు�వత్స�రుము�ల ఉం�ట్టు�నా�డు�, ఈ విషయ్యమై మా గ్రా� ము సురు;�చ్ జోడు� రాము�లముM, చేబ్రోa ల� శివ, గీత్సల దేవి మురికొ�త్స ము�ది ప�చ్చాయ్యతీ పెటి' మా అనుం�య్య� నాగరాజునుం� గటి'గ్రా తిటి'నారు�. ఈ క్ర"ము�లో మా అనుం�య్య� మా వదినుంతో మాట్టు ము�తి లేక్ర��డా ... ”
But, P.W.5 denied the said statement, however, a perusal of the said statement, it is clear that both the 1st accused and deceased have no cordial relations and the 1st accused used to scold her on the premise of ‘illicit
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 17 Sessions Case 10/2024
intimacy’, which also leads to draw an adverse inference against that the 1st accused inimical disposed of against the deceased and waiting for an opportunity to get rid off. Hence, though the accused sought to rely on
Ex.D.3, the same is no way helpful to him since, in Ex.D.3, it is clear that there are strained relations in between the accused and the deceased.
14.The prosecution examined one of the residents of
Ardhannapalem village as P.W.6, who stated that the 1st accused and deceased lived happily for four years and deceased gave birth to a son by name
Yeswanth. He pleaded ignorance regarding the reasons for the quarrels in between the 1st accused and the deceased. He also stated that he does not know anything about the case. Hence, the learned Public Prosecutor declared the witness hostile and cross-examined him, but during his cross- examination, nothing worthwhile could be elicited in favour of the prosecution theory, as such, the evidence of P.W.6 is of no avail to the case of prosecution.
15.The prosecution examined the shop owner, who witnessed the deceased on 28.01.2022 at her shop, as P.W.7, but she stated that on 30.01.2022 evening the 1st accused came to her and told her that the deceased was not found and he gave complaint to the Police, except that she did not state anything, as such, the learned Public Prosecutor declared her hostile and cross-examined her, but nothing worthwhile could be elicited. However, during her cross-examination by the learned Counsel for the 1st accused, she stated that she went to the Police Station after four or five days after the incident and that she did not see the CCTV footage. During her cross- examination by the learned Counsel for the 2nd accused, she denied that she stated before the Police as in Ex.D.4, wherein it was mentioned that:
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 18 Sessions Case 10/2024
“తే. 28.01.2022 ది శు�క్ర"వారు� రాతిf ముgత్స�రాల� లక్ష్మిi డు0�టీ దిగి వసు�k �డుగ్రా కొత్సkవలసు కారు- స్టాం' �డు� ద్దగmరిలో నాగరాజు బం�డి ఎకిo�చు�కొని విజయ్యనుంగరు� రోడు�r లో ” వెళ్ళuట్టు� మా సురు;�చుముMక్ర� చెంప;గ్రా నాక్ర� సురు;�చుముM దాvరా తెలింసినుంది
Though P.W.7 denied the statement and though P.W.7 turned hostile, still the content in the above statement goes to show that the 1st accused was the person with whom lastly the deceased moved. Hence, though the contradiction in the statement of P.W.7 was got marked by the accused, it has no much importance and basing on the same, the accused cannot plead innocence and exemption.
16.The person to whom the deceased informed about the harassment caused by the 1st accused towards her as P.W.8, who stated that about three months prior to the death, the deceased came to her and informed that the 1st accused is harassing her and he developed illicit intimacy with another woman and further stated that on 02.02.2022, the 1st accused came to her house and informed that the deceased was missing and further informed that he gave report to the Police and she further stated that the 1st accused asked her to say before the Police that the deceased came along with one person wearing helmet and deceased along with that person left that place, but she did not accept the request of the 1st accused and later the 1st accused called her husband and also requested the same to her husband, for which, her husband also did not agree and that on 04.02.2022, she came to know through her husband that the deceased died. The learned Public Prosecutor declared the witness hostile and cross-examined her wherein she admitted that she stated before the Police that two-to-three times she called the 1st accused scolded him for his behaviour and that the 1st accused harass the deceased to give divorce.
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 19 Sessions Case 10/2024
16.1. During her cross-examination by the learned Counsel for the 1st accused, P.W.8 stated that she never went to the house of the deceased and the 1st accused and admitted that she came to know the death of deceased through P.W.3. Even though the evidence of P.W.8 was declared hostile by the learned Public Prosecutor, still the fact remains for consideration from her evidence is that she was asked by the accused to say before the Police that the ‘deceased came along with one person wearing helmet and deceased along with that person left that place...’, which clearly manifests the intention of the accused to eliminate the deceased.
17.The brother of the deceased was examined by the prosecution as
P.W.9, who stated that he is a resident of Vuddavolu village and he is a carpenter and that the deceased is his sister and she was given in marriage with the 1st accused about 8 years prior to her death and their marriage was performed with the acceptance of their family and after the marriage, his sister gave birth to male child and that deceased used to come to their house and that she informed that 1st accused developed illicit intimacy with the 2nd accused and then they consoled deceased and sent her back to matrimonial house and that he came to know about the death of his deceased sister on 04.02.2022 through his wife, after coming to know the same, he and his brother went to the village, there, on enquiry with the villagers, they informed him that on 28.01.2022, when his sister was returning back from sweet shop, 1st accused picked her on his bike and took her to the cashew tope and burnt her and that he was examined by the Police and recorded his statement.
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 20 Sessions Case 10/2024
17.1. During his cross-examination by the learned Counsel for the 1st accused, P.W.9 stated that he has no personal knowledge about the incident and he came to know about the incident through P.W.3, hence, he can be construed as a hearsay evidence. Of course, merely on the ground of hearsay, the entire evidence of witness cannot be thrown aside.
17.2. During his cross-examination by the learned Counsel for the 2nd accused, P.W.9 stated that his family did not attend the marriage of the 1st accused and the deceased. According to him, deceased came to their house for twice or thrice and informed about the illicit intimacy of the 1st accused with the 2nd accused prior to giving birth to child. This version of P.W.9 is different from the prosecution theory since according to the prosecution, both deceased and 1st accused lead happy marital life for four years and gave birth to male child during that period. If really, there is any illicit intimacy in between accused 1 and 2 even prior to the birth of the child, the disputes would have been arose even prior to the birth of the child but not after the birth of the child. Hence, merely relying on the evidence of P.W.9 regarding the illicit intimacy, in view of inconsistency, as stated supra, this Court is unable to accept the alleged illicit intimacy in between the accused 1 and 2, which is the sole reason for the 1st accused to kill the deceased and this Court has no hesitation to hold that the prosecution failed to prove the alleged illicit intimacy in between the accused 1 and 2 even through the evidence of P.W.9.
18.The prosecution examined the maternal aunt of the 2nd accused as P.W.10 who stated that she is having a scooty bearing registration No.AP 39 FU 3678 and that in the year 2022, the Police took away her vehicle stating that the Inspector of Police directed to bring her vehicle and she does not
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 21 Sessions Case 10/2024
remember the exact date, except that she did not state anything about the case, hence the learned Public Prosecutor declared her hostile and cross- examined her, but nothing worthwhile could be fetched in favour of prosecution theory, as such, the evidence of P.W.10 is of no avail to the case of prosecution.
19.The person from the 1st accused took petrol in a half-a-liter bottle was examined as P.W.11, who stated that he is a resident of Kothavalasa and he is working a Company and he knows 1st accused being the resident of his neighbouring village and that on 29.01.2022, the 1st accused approached him and asked her to give petrol as his vehicle was stopped due to lack of petrol and accordingly, he had given petrol in a half-a-liter plastic bottle/M.O.15 bottle and later he came to know in the evening that the 1st accused killed his wife.
19.1. During his cross-examination by the learned Counsel for the
Accused he stated that he took petrol from his vehicle AP 31 BB 5868 and gave to the 1st accused and his vehicle was not seized by the Police. He denied that he is deposing false at the instance of the Police.
20.The person who exhibited the CCTV footage was examined by the prosecution as P.W.12, who stated that he is working as a Constable in
I.T.Core Team and that on 16.03.2022, Inspector of Police called him and instructed him to show the CCTV footage to the Constable on that he showed the CCTV footage and he downloaded the same in the Compact Disc and handed over the same (Exs.P.3 and P.4).
20.1. During his cross-examination by the learned Counsel for the 1st accused, he stated that there is no written requisition from the Inspector of
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 22 Sessions Case 10/2024
Police, but he added that there is a requisition to the D.I.G. Technical service.
He further stated that he has not given the full footage of CCTV and that he downloaded the CCTV footage timing mentioned by the Inspector of Police and he downloaded the CCTV footage from 07:00 to 08:00 p.m., but denied that the CCTV footage was tampered. According to P.W.12, as per the directions of the higher Authorities, he downloaded the CCTV footage, but he has not filed any document to show that as per the directions of the higher
Authorities, he did so. Even though no copy of order is produced by P.W.12 with regard to the directions given to him to download the CCTV footage, still his evidence inspires confidence for the reason that whatever he did is only basing on either oral written directions of his Officials, hence, this Court felt that even though he was cross-examined by the learned Defence Counsel, nothing favourable material could be elicited for the accused.
21.The prosecution examined the son of the deceased and other 1st accused as P.W.13, and, the Court after putting basic questions to ascertain that whether he is able to give rational answers, since he is a minor, considered as a competent witness. He stated that he is staying with the 1st accused and his mother died while he was studying II standard and his aunt informed him that his mother died and P.W.10 took him to the Hospital for the purpose of his collection blood samples. During his cross-examination by the learned Counsel for the 1st accused he stated that during life time of his mother, his parents took him to out and there were no disputes in between them. No cross-examination was done by the learned Counsel for the 2nd accused to this witness.
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 23 Sessions Case 10/2024
22.The prosecution examined one of the inquest panchayatdars as
P.W.14, who stated that that he is a resident of Jodimeraka village and he knows the accused and deceased and the deceased died in the month of
January, 2022 and he came to know about the death of the deceased on 04.02.2022, immediately, he went to the scene of offence and as per the request of the Village Revenue Officer, he acted as mediator for inquest panchanama and hair and ash was collected in their presence and the deceased died of burnings and Ex.P.11/Inquest Panchanama 22.1. During his cross-examination by the learned Counsel for the 1st accused, he stated that on his own, he went to the scene of offence after he came to know about the death of the deceased and by that time, he reached the scene of offence, Village Revenue Officer, Sarpanch and Ward Members were also present there, he denied that he did not go to the scene of offence and deposing false. Except the suggestion, which is denied by P.W.14, the accused could not fetch and favourable material from the cross-examination of
P.W.14, hence the evidence of P.W.14 is trustworthy regarding his presence at the time of inquest and acting as one of the inquest panchayatdars.
23.One of the mediators for the CCTV footages was examined by the prosecution as P.W.15, who stated that he is working as Village Revenue
Officer, Ganisettypalem and that previously, he worked as Village Revenue
Officer, Uttaravalli village and that on 16.03.2022 as per the instructions of their Mandal Revenue Officer, he and L.W.25/Patnala Madhu went to
Kothavalasa Police Station at about 11:30 a.m. by that time P.W.3, ward members were present, the Inspector of Police requested to act as mediators for CCTV footages, then Inspector of Police informed that CCTV footages are
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 24 Sessions Case 10/2024
received from DIG office and first CCTV footage Dt.28.01.2022 between 07:00 and 08:00 p.m. shows a lady wearing white top and green pant going from
Vizag road to Vizianagaram road at Kothavalasa junction and she is holding white cover and 2nd CCTV footage also shows a lady is near Police control room and 3rd footage is at Girijala junction in that a lady going on scooty as a pillion rider and the lady is same in all the three CCTV footages and they identified the said lady as wife of the 1st accused and then CCTV footages were stored in C.Ds under Exs.P.3 and P.4 and one of the persons in computer room of Police Station drafted the Ex.P.12/mediators report, wherein, he signed.
23.1. During his cross-examination by the learned Counsel for the 1st accused, P.W.15 stated that there is no written requisition from the Mandal
Revenue Officer and by the time when he reached the Police Station, P.Ws.3 and 7 were also present. Though it could be elicited from P.W.15 that he does not know what conversation took place in between P.W.3 and Police, this
Court unable to find the same as serious lapse for prosecution for the reason even by the time when P.W.15 went to the Police Station, P.W.3 was present, and, he is not supposed to disclose the things that were happened in his absence. Even though he pleaded ignorance as regards the name of the person, who drafted Ex.P.12, there is no any strict rule that a person who signs any document must know the name of the Scribe and the person who signs on a document should know the contents but not the name of the scribe or author. Hence, the non-awareness of the name of the scribe of Ex.P.12 by
P.W.15 cannot be a ground to doubt the veracity in his testimony. Though
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 25 Sessions Case 10/2024
P.W.15 stated that no male person is found in the CCTV footages, basing on the same, the entire case of the prosecution cannot be brushed aside.
24.The prosecution examined the Deputy Civil Surgeon as P.W.16, who stated that he received requisition from the Inspector of Police and accordingly, he collected the blood samples from P.W.13 for DNA examination and handed over the same to the Inspector of Police. During his cross- examination by the learned Counsel for the 1st accused, he denied that he has not collected the blood samples from P.W.13 and he is deposing false at the instance of Police. Though he denied the said suggestion, but stated that he did not receive any written requisition. Of course, the mode of requisition as to whether it is oral or written, the fact remains for consideration is that
P.W.16 collected the blood samples from P.W.13. To that extent, the evidence of P.W.16 is believable since the 1st accused could not elicit anything in his favour.
25.The Assistant Director, R.F.S.L., who conducted bio-chemical examination was examined by the prosecution as P.W.17, who stated that she received requisition from Sub Divisional Police Officer, Visakhapatnam in
Cr.No.24/2022 of Kothavalasa Police Station and that on on 16.02.2022, she received sealed box through PC.572 accordingly, she conducted bio-Chemical and Immunological examination and she issued Ex.P.13/R.F.S.L report and as per her examination Human blood is detected on item No.1, Blood group of blood stains on item No.1 is of “A” and that the Blood is not detected on item
No.2 which is received as control for items No.1. During her cross- examination by the learned Counsel for the 1st Accused, she denied that she
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 26 Sessions Case 10/2024
did not conduct the examination as per the standards and she is deposing false at the instance of the Police.
26.The Tahsildar, who conducted the inquest over the dead body was examined by the Prosecution as P.W.18, who stated that he is working as
Tahsildar, Lakkavarapu Kota and previously, he worked as Tahsildar,
Kothavalasa and that on 04.02.2022, he received requisition from Station
House Officer, Kothavalasa to conduct Inquest over dead body of deceased at about 12:00 noon, he visited scene of offence, by the time he reached scene of offence, Inspector of Police and other Police personnel and some others were present there, the scene of offence is a cashew tope at the road leading to
Vizianagaram from Kothavalasa and he observed burnt ash and some bones resembling human body and that he also found metal bangles and metal
Mettelu and single patti and one piece of cloth of a wearing apparel of a woman and seven feet from there he also observed long hair M.O.7 and M.O.8 are hair. M.O.9 and M.O.10 are blood stain stones and that Mos.1 to 6 were also seized in his presence and he also examined blood relatives and he conducted Inquest in the presence of P.W.4 and 5, blood relatives of the deceased and Village Revenue Officers and that the mediators opined that the death due to setting fire, Ex.P.11 is Inquest Report and that he also enquired the last seen person and mentioned in Col.No.4 of Ex.P.11.
26.1. During his cross-examination by the learned Counsel for the 1st accused, he stated that there is no dead body present at the scene of offence, but he added that burnt ashes of body was there. According to him, by the time he reached the scene of offence, clues team was present. Even though
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 27 Sessions Case 10/2024
P.W.18 was cross-examined, nothing worthwhile could be elicited to disbelieve his testimony regarding the conducting of inquest.
27.The prosecution examined the Investigating Officer, who visited the scene of offence, observed the same and got photographed the same as
P.W.19, who stated that that he is working as Sub Inspector of Police, Special branch, Parvathipuram and that previously, he worked as Sub Inspector of
Police, Clues team, Vizianagaram and that on 04.02.2022, on oral instructions of Station House Officer, Kothavalasa, he visited scene of offence along with his team, he reached scene of offence at 10:00 a.m., his team observed that there is pit in a cashew tope and they found ashes and examined minutely ash and some bones resembling human body and that he also found metal bangles and metal Mettelu and single patti and one piece of cloth of a wearing apparel of a woman and seven feet from there and he also observed long hair and that he seized M.Os.1 to 10 and they also photographed and videographed the scene of offence and that Ex.P.14 is the list of material object seized by them at the time inspection of scene of offence and handed over same to Station
House Officer, Kothavalasa/ L.W.32.
27.1. During his cross-examination by the learned Counsel for the 1st accused, P.W19 denied that he has not received any oral instructions of
Station House Officer, Kothavalasa nor he visited scene of offence along with my team nor he observed that there is pit in a cashew tope nor found ashes and examined minutely ash and some bones resembling human body nor he also found metal bangles and metal Mettelu and single patti and one piece of cloth of a wearing apparel of a woman nor he observed long hair nor seized
M.Os.1 to 10 nor got photographed and videographed the scene of offence not
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 28 Sessions Case 10/2024
drafted Ex.P.14 nor handed over same to the Inspector of Police. Even though P.W.19 was put to much cross-examination by the learned Counsel for the 1st accused, nothing worthwhile could be elicited to discard his testimony with regard to visiting of scene of offence, observing the same and seizure of material objects etc., on the other hand, the evidence of P.W.19 inspires confidence regarding the complicity of the 1st accused. But, a perusal of overall evidence of P.W.19 he did not even a single word against the 2nd accused. Hence, as discussed supra, this Court could able to conclude that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the 2nd accused even through the evidence of P.W.19.
28.The prosecution examined the Investigating Officer, who did investigation and filed the charge sheet as P.W.20, who stated that he is working as Inspector of Police, Special Branch, Anakapalli and previously, he worked as Inspector of Police, Kothavalasa from 20.06.2021 to 15.07.2023 and that on 30.01.2022, the 1st accused came to Police Station and gave report basing on the same he registered case in Cr.No.24/2022 U/s women missing and issued Ex.P.15/F.I.R. and deputed to L.W.31/ASI, Kothavalasa for investigation and that on 04.02.2022 at 09:30 a.m., P.W.1 came to Police
Station gave report along with the 1st accused with statement basing on the same, he altered the section of law from women missing into 302, 201 of I.P.C and submitted Ex.P.16/altered FIR to the Court and all concerned and later he secured the mediators P.W.1, L.W.17/Adavi Naidu, the 1st accused lead them to scene of offence and showed the scene of offence and he examined the scene of offence with the help of clues team and prepared scene observation
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 29 Sessions Case 10/2024
report/Ex.P.8 and photographed and videographed the scene of offence and seized M.Os.1 to 10.
28.1. P.W.20 further stated that he examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and recorded their statements and he sent requisition to P.W.18 to conduct Inquest and
P.W.18 conducted Inquest and that on 04.02.2022 at 03:00 p.m., he arrested the 1st accused in the presence of mediators P.W.1, L.W.17/Adavi Naidu and recorded the confession statement of the 1st accused at Police Station and the 1st accused lead them to the his house at Jodumeraka village and there he/P.W.20 seized M.Os.13 to 16 and drafted mediators report/Ex.P.7 and the 1st accused was produced before the Court for Judicial remand and basing on confession of the 1st accused on 05.02.2022, on receipt of information, he secured the presence of P.W.1 and L.W.17/Adavi Naidu along with P.W.3 went to Gidijala junction, there they found the 2nd accused and on interrogation, she revealed her name and confession of commission of offence and after recording the confession statement of the 2nd accused in the presence of
P.W.1, L.W.17/Adavi Naidu, P.W.3 and after informing the grounds of arrest, they arrested the 2nd accused and produced before the Court.
28.2. P.W.20 further stated that on 06.02.2022, he secured P.W.6,
P.W.7, and 8 and recorded their statements and that on 07.02.2022, he secured the presence of Chebrolu Ramu, Urli Pothu Raju (L.Ws.9 and 10) and
P.W.8 and recorded their statements and that on 08.02.2022, he secured
P.W.9, L.W.13/Sarapinti Veerachari and recorded their statements and that on 09.02.2022, he secured P.Ws.10 and 11 and recorded their statements and later on, he filed a memo for recording the statements of witnesses and sent
M.O.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11 for F.S.L. Amaravathi and he also sent to M.O.9 to
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 30 Sessions Case 10/2024
R.F.S.L, Visakhapatnam and that P.W.16 collected blood samples of P.W.13 for
D.N.A test and Ex.P.17 is D.N.A report of P.W.13 and that on 16.03.2022, on her requisition technical team, Vijayawada to Station House Officer,
Kothavalasa sent three mails, on receipt of mails, he secured the presence of
P.W.3, P.W.15, L.W.24/Golla Gopi Nagaraju and identified and sent to F.S.L,
Amaravathi. Ex.P.18 is the certificate for CCTV footage/ Ex.P.12.
28.3. P.W.20 further stated that he secured the presence of mediators
P.W.3, P.W.7, P.W.15, L.W.24/Golla Gopi Naga Raju, L.W.25/Patnala Madhu and in their presence, he verified the CCTV footages, in the first footage at about 07:26 p.m. of 28.01.2022 and that he found one lady coming from
Visakhapatnam to Vizianagaram road wearing white top and green chunni, green pant with a white cover in her hand and that in the 2nd CCTV footage which was at Kothavalasa junction at unused Police sub-control room junction at about 07:30 p.m., the same lady was found walking from junction to
Vizianagaram road, and in the 3rd CCTV footage at Gidijala junction at about 07:34 p.m. the same lady was found coming from Gidijala junction to
Vizianagaram, and he found one male person taking the lady on his scooty bearing registration No.AP 39 FU 3678.
28.4. P.W.20 further stated that the lady who was found in CCTV footages identified by P.W.3 and P.W.7 as the deceased and all the CCTV footages were saved in C.D/ Exs.P.3 and P.4 and in the presence of mediators
P.W.3, P.W.7, P.W.15, L.W.24/Naga Raju, and L.W.25/Madhu and C.Ds were forwarded for F.S.L Amaravathi for analysis and he examined P.W.12 recorded his statement and that on 20.03.2022, he examined P.W.16 and recorded his
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 31 Sessions Case 10/2024
statement and that after receipt of R.F.S.L and F.S.L, DNA and final opinion reports and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.
28.5. During his cross-examination by the learned Counsel for the 1st accused, he has not filed the missing complaint given by the 1st accused in this
Court, but the same cannot be considered as a serious lapse for the prosecution for the reason the said report by the 1st accused seems to be escape from his liability and hence even if there is any such report, the same has no much importance. P.W.20 categorically stated that there are no eyewitnesses in this case, but he added that this case depends on the ‘last seen’ theory. He stated that he did not examine the parents of the deceased,
Owner of the sweet shop and the so called persons with the name Demudu and Venkat, but this Court did not find any fault on the part of the
Investigating Officer in non-examining the parents of the deceased and the above persons in view of the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 4 before whom the 1st accused confessed his guilt and P.W.4 who had seen the 1st accused and the deceased lastly.
28.6. P.W.20 stated that he did not seize any Call Date Record. This part of omission on the part of the Investigating Officer disproves the contention of the prosecution that only because of illicit intimacy of the 1st accused with the 2nd accused, he eliminated the deceased at her instance. If really, the 2nd accused instigated the 1st accused or both of them conspired, definitely, the prosecution would have seized the call data record to prove the alleged conspiracy in between them or provocation by the 2nd accused to the 1st accused to remove the deceased from their way. However, the admission of
P.W.20 with regard to non-seizure of finger prints nor blood samples cannot be
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 32 Sessions Case 10/2024
said to be fatal to the case of prosecution for the reason that even by the time when the death of the deceased came to the light, there remained only ash of her. In such circumstances, the seizure or blood samples or finger prints is not possible.
28.7. P.W.20 though admitted that he obtained signature of the accused but did not note the date on the confession statement and mediators report. In view of the consistent and convincing evidence of P.W.1 with regard to the confession of the accused with regard to his complicity before P.W.1, the mere non-noting of the date underneath the signature of the 1st accused does not take away the case of prosecution. It might be true that Ex.P.3 and 4 do not show the deceased was getting on and getting down from the bike, but in view of the consistent evidence of P.W.4 as regards to going of deceased with the 1st accused, mere non-visibility of her in Exs.P.3 and P.4 does not cut the prosecution in its entirety. Furthermore, except suggesting by the learned
Counsel for the 1st accused to P.W.20 that Exs.P.3 and P.4 are fabricated, the accused did not make any attempt to get them examined by the Expert if really he felt that they were tampered or fabricated. Hence, this Court is of firm view that when the prosecution could able to prove Exs.P.3 and P.4, it is
for the accused to disprove the same, but he failed to do so, thereby this Court
is unable to convince with argument of the learned Counsel for the 1st accused in this dimension.
28.8. Even though P.W.20 admitted in his cross-examination that he did not mention the make colour of M.O.13/Bike, this Court did not find any seriousness in the said omission since the going of deceased on the bike was well-established by the prosecution through the evidence of P.W.4. P.W.20
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 33 Sessions Case 10/2024
further admitted that there was a prior complaint with regard to the disputes in between the 1st accused and the deceased. This part of admission goes in adverse to the case of the prosecution since even from suggestion, the 1st accused himself exposed the differences in between him and the deceased, which, in normal circumstances, drives even a common lane to raise a suspicion against the 1st accused to kill his wife.
28.9. P.W.20 admitted though admitted that he did not file the photographs of scene of offence, but asserted that he filed the Compact Disc (CD). This Court did not find any lacuna on the part of the prosecution in not filing the photographs when the CD to that extent is filed, further, it is also not the case of the 1st accused that the contents in the said Compact Disc did not show the place of offence, moreover, he made it clear that by the time, when he reached the place of offence, the Clues Team took the videographed the scene of offence. According to P.W.20, there are two scenes of offences and hence the burnt material was secured from the two places. P.W.20 admitted that the clues team did not mention the length of the hair and size of bangles in the report. May be said fact is true, but it does not alone sufficient to destroy the case of prosecution for the reason the accused failed to place any contra material that the said piece of hair and bangles do not pertain to the deceased.
28.10. Even though it could be elicited from P.W.20 that there is no mention in Exs.P.7 and P.12 as to who drafted the same. But, as discussed in preceding paragraphs, mere non mentioning the name of the author or scribe cannot be a sole ground to disbelieve these couple of documents since the contents prevail over the description of the Author, since the accused failed to
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 34 Sessions Case 10/2024
place any convincing material before the Court to show that the contents of these two documents are not correct. Thus, even though P.W.20 was put to a lengthy cross-examination by the learned Counsel for the 1st accused, nothing worthwhile could be eliciting fetching the case of the 1st accused, therefore, this Court has no hesitation to hold that through the evidence of P.W.20, the prosecution could able to prove the complicity of the 1st accused in commission of the offence.
28.11. During his cross-examination by the learned Counsel for the 2nd accused, P.W.20 admitted that in Ex.P.2, the name of the 2nd accused is inserted in between the gaps, this part of admission clearly emphasizes the innocence of the 2nd accused so also her inclusion in this case. Hence, basing on this admission of P.W.20 apart from the above discussion in preceding paragraphs as regards the role of the 2nd accused, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the 2nd accused is not at all responsible for the death of the deceased and it can be safely concluded that even through the evidence of
P.W.20, the prosecution failed to prove anything against the 2nd accused in the present crime.
29.The prosecution examined the learned Magistrate, who recorded 164, Cr.P.C. statements of witnesses as P.W.21, who stated that she is working as Junior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem and previously, she worked as Judicial
Magistrate of I Class, Kothavalasa from July, 2022 to April, 2023 and that the
Inspector of Police, Kothavalasa filed a memo for recording 164, Cr.P.C.
statements of P.Ws.3 to 8 and L.W.7/Jodu Narasimhulu, accordingly, she recorded the statements of P.Ws 3 to 8 and L.W.7/Jodu Narasimhulu. She further stated that P.W.3 stated before her that 1st accused is her relative’s son
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 35 Sessions Case 10/2024
and his wife Laxmi belongs to Therlam mandal and they performed your marriage eight years ago at Simhachalam when both of them loved each other and lived happily for three years and were blessed with a son/Yeswanth who is aged about 07 years, thereafter, 1st accused got acquaintance with the 2nd accused and thereafter 1st accused did not look after his wife and son and you used to demand her to give divorce and whenever she refused, the 1st accused used to beat her and the matter was placed in Police Station, but, there is no change and that on 29th January between 09:00 a.m and 10:00 a.m. the wife of the 1st accused was found missing and that on 30th January, complaint was given to police wherein 1st accused also signed and that she/P.W.3 got a doubt against the 1st accused and she told the same to Inspector of Police, after three days, the 1st accused confessed before P.W.1 that he took Laxmi to a cashew nut garden which is in Pedagoppu, beat her with a big stone and set her, fire by poring petrol 29.1. P.W.21 further stated that P.W.4 stated before her that the 1st accused loved Laxmi who belongs to Therlam mandal and they performed their marriage they had a boy and after the birth of their boy, they lived happily for few days, the 1st accused got acquaintance with Mounika/Accused
No.2 of you and demanded Laxmi to give divorce, when she refused the 1st accused used to harassed her by not providing food and when the matter was placed before the elders they also told the 1st accused to look after his wife and son and that when the 1st accused was taking Laxmi on a bike and later he/P.W.4 came to know that the Laxmi was found missing and he also came to know that a case was registered and he told to P.W.3 that day before the previous night, he saw the 1st accused took Laxmi on a bike and in the
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 36 Sessions Case 10/2024
meanwhile, the 1st accused also confessed before P.W.1 that he committed murder, by pouring petrol and later Police arrested him.
29.2. P.W.21 further stated that P.W.5 stated before her that 1st accused is his nearest relative, he was married 8 years ago 1st accused and his wife happily for few days, later, he got acquaintance with Mounika/Accused
No.2 of you and ever since, there were disputes between 1st accused and his wife and one day Accused No.2 went to house of the 1st accused and told that she was three month pregnant and that Laxmi refused for the same and the elders convinced them and send them, but no change and that the 1st accused tried to get rid of Laxmi and that he/P.W.5 found when the 1st accused took
Laxmi on 28th and that he got a doubt that why he was taking her, since they had no talking terms and later Laxmi was found missing and everyone got doubt on the 1st accused and later the 1st accused confessed before P.W.1 that he committed murder and burnt the body.
29.3. P.W.21 further stated that P.W.6 stated before her that on 28.01.2022, Laxmi was found missing and they thought she was somewhere and later on 31st, Mounika/Accused No.2 came to him and asked a doubt that what will be the punishment if someone committed murder and then he told that to his knowledge, it might be eight years and that she again asked him whether it is possible to come out, by paying amount, on that, he stated that it is possible if the offences are petty offences and then, she told that she called him to ask the said doubt and later, he/P.W.6 came to know that Laxmi died and the 1st accused murdered her.
29.4. P.W.21 further stated that that P.W.7 stated before her that the marriage 1st accused was performed with Laxmi about eight years back and
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 37 Sessions Case 10/2024
both of them lived happily for some and blessed with a son and after the birth of their son, the 1st accused told that he would marry Mounika/Accused No.2 and the 1st accused did not want Laxmi and also asked Laxmi to give divorce and when she refused, the 1st accused made allegations against her and that 10 days prior to her death, Laxmi came to her/P.W.7 with a curry and cried and she stated the 1st accused was following her up to her shop and she got a doubt on him and that on the night of 28th at about 07:00 p.m., the 1st accused took Laxmi from her shop on his bike and on 30th, the 1st accused came to her and told that Laxmi went away with a person, on that, she asked the 1st accused how she could go, by leaving her son and searched for her on surrounding places and after two hours, the 1st accused again came and told that Laxmi was in Sujatha Nagar and she went there on a bike of a person and after they gave complaint, the Police came and they took the 1st accused to Sujatha Nagar to enquiry, prior to that the 1st accused told the persons at
Sujatha Nagar to say lies to police, but, they recorded his conversation and sent the same to the president Ramulamma through Whatsapp and that the
President made her to listen the said conversation and that the 1st accused tried to say lies likewise and that the 2nd accused asked Rajesh what will be the punishment if someone committed murder, said Rajesh is her brother-in- law and he informed the same to her and P.W.3 and on that, they got suspicion and the 2nd accused demanded the 1st Accused through phone to marry her and same was informed to her by the 1st Accused and even though, she tried to convince him, but, he did not listen and that the 1st Accused committed murder on 28th night, by taking Laxmi to Pedda Goppu and he confessed the same before P.W.1.
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 38 Sessions Case 10/2024
29.5. P.W.21 further stated that P.W.8 stated before her that on 02.02.2022 her elder brother Naga Raju came to her house and asked her to tell that Laxmi came to her house along with a boy and also told that the
Laxmi was found missing and his villagers would she complaint against him and then she asked him how she could say when Laxmi did not come to her house and asked 1st Accused to call her husband, for which, the 1st Accused called her (P.W.8) husband through phone and also asked him to say that
Laxmi came to their house for which, her husband also asked the 1st Accused how could they say and he husband recorded the conversation and sent the same to P.W.3 and that two to three months prior to that day, Laxmi came to her house and she cried and told her that the 1st accused demanded her to give divorce and that after Laxmi went away, the 1st accused called her on suspicion and asked her whether Laxmi came to her house, on that, she scolded him, on that he stopped to talk to her and the 1st accused had illicit intimacy with another girl/Accused No.2 and that on 04.02.2022 she came to through P.W.3 that the Laxmi was died and she also came to know that the 1st accused murdered her. Exs.P.19 to P.24 are the 164, Cr.P.C. Statements
PW.3 to P.W.8.
29.6. During her cross-examination by the learned Counsel for the accused, she denied that the witnesses did not give statement before her voluntarily, except that nothing could be elicited from her cross-examination in support of the accused.
30.Thus, from the above evidence, when the prosecution could prove that the death of the deceased is a homicidal death, it has to be seen that how far the prosecution could able to establish that that the accused are
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 39 Sessions Case 10/2024
responsible for the death of the deceased. It was already discussed in the preceding paragraphs that the 2nd accused has no role in the crime and she is not responsible for the death of the deceased.
31.Admittedly, there is no direct witness to the offence and the entire case of prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence, where, the burden is heavily on the prosecution to establish the links. In the case on hand, admittedly, the prosecution did not examine the parents of the deceased, but examined the brother of the deceased, who clearly stated about the disputes in between the 1st accused and the deceased. The other witnesses examined by the prosecution also stated that the deceased used to report to them that the 1st accused was harassing her. Further, even from the evidence of P.W.20, it is clear that the deceased lodged a report against the 1st accused for harassing her. Thus, it is clear that there is strain relationship in between the 1st accused and the deceased, which amply establishes the ‘motive’ on the part of the 1st accused to get rid of the deceased.
31.Now, it has to be seen how far the prosecution could able to prove that the 1st accused killed the deceased. At the first instance, the 1st accused went to P.W.1 and made Extra Judicial Confession before him and P.W.1 along with his report surrendered the 1st accused before the Police Officials. As per the report of P.W.1, after making confession before him, the 1st accused took
P.W.1 to the scene of offence and showed the place where he burnt the deceased. Later, after surrendering the 1st accused before the Police, the 1st accused lead the Police and P.W.1 to the scene of offence, which clearly shows that the scene of offence is in exclusive knowledge of the accused, hence, it can
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 40 Sessions Case 10/2024
be clearly said that the first chain of circumstances was clearly established by the prosecution.
31.1. In this regard, the prosecution heavily relied on the evidence of
P.W.4, who stated that “… while I was at Kothavalasa car stand on road, leading to Vizianagaram, then A.1 came there on his Scooty and deceased came there and both went on scooty towards Vizianagaram”. This version of P.W.4 shows that the deceased lastly went along with the 1st accused, as such, the 1st accused is alone responsible to answer as to what happened to the deceased.
The learned Public Prosecutor while drawing the attention of this Court to ‘last seen theory’ submitted that the entire evidence of prosecution witnesses clearly shows that the 1st accused had disputes with the 1st accused and intended to remove her and thus he hatched up a plan to kill her and in execution of the same, he made the deceased to believe him and took her to the isolated place and killed her. In support of her contentions, the learned
Public Prosecutor relied on a judgment reported in State of Andhra
Pradesh Vs. Patchimala Vigneswarudu @ Viganna 1, wherein, it was observed that:
“(i) Admittedly, the deceased was the wife of the accused and they had strained relations.
(ii) …
(iii) …
(iv) The deceased and accused were last seen in the mid night (intervening night of 5.8.2001 and 6.8.2001) going together from cinema hall after night show, towards village Ayinavilli.
18. In our opinion, above chain of circumstances is complete and leads only to the conclusion that it was the accused/respondent and he alone, who committed the murder of the deceased.” 1 Criminal Appeal NO.436 of 2008, dt.06.01.2016 of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 41 Sessions Case 10/2024
The above judgment clearly shows that the accused and deceased were jointly last seen. The ratio in the above judgment aptly applied to the case on hand since, in the instant case, the 1st accused himself took P.W.1 to the scene of offence at the first instance and showed the same and the same is corroborated with his Extra Judicial Confession. Moreover, as per the evidence of P.W.4 when he was at Kothavalasa car stand, the 1st accused came there on his scooty and deceased also came there and both of them went on scooty towards Vizianagaram and thus, both the 1st accused and deceased were lastly seen by P.W.4 and as per the evidence of P.W.7, she and other villagers have seen the 1st accused and deceased in the CCTV footages and identified them-+, which amply proves that the accused took the deceased in the evening time and thereafter she was found missing and hence in view of the ratio laid down in the above case law, this Court has no hesitation to arrive at conclusion that the 1st accused alone committed the murder of the deceased and the prosecution could able to establish the chain of circumstances.
32.While cross-examining the Investigating Officers, the learned
Defence Counsels pointed out certain discrepancies. For which, the learned
Public Prosecutor submitted that even assuming for a while that there is discrepancy with regard to non-mentioning the names of the authors and non- noting of dates underneath the signatures, it does not cut the root of the prosecution case. In this context, it is apt to refer a judgment in Rajesh
Yadav and another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 2 wherein it was observed that:
2 Crl.Appeal 339, 340 of 2014, dt.04.02.2022 of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 42 Sessions Case 10/2024
“It is settled proposition of Law that even if there are some omissions, contradictions and discrepancies, the entire evidence cannot be disregarded. After exercising care and caution and sifting through the evidence to separate truth from untruth, exaggeration and improvements, the Court comes to a conclusion as to whether the residuary evidence is sufficient to convict the accused. Thus, undue importance should not be attached to omissions, contradictions and discrepancies, which do not go to the heart of the matter and shake the basic version of the prosecution’s witnesses. ”
Thus, in view of the ratio laid down in the above case even though there are certain discrepancies are there in the case of prosecution, in view of the other consistent and corroborative evidence available on record, this Court holds that those discrepancies are trivial in nature and they do not shake the case of prosecution from its root.
33.Now, coming to the role of the 2nd accused, the prosecution witnesses i.e. P.Ws.3 to 5 and 7 though asserted that the 2nd accused is behind the crime since both the accused are having illicit intimacy, but in their 161,
Cr.P.C. statements, which are marked as Exs.D.1 to D.4, they have stated differently, which disproves the contention of the prosecution that the 2nd accused connived in the offence and hence this Court is of considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove guilt of the 2nd accused.
34.As seen from the material, the accused were charged for the offence under Section 201 of IPC, but as seen from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, this Court did not find any sufficient material for the reason that the entire case of the prosecution rests on circumstances evidence and there is no ocular witness for the offence and also to say that the accused caused disappearance of evidence or giving false information to screen the offender, moreover, the 1st accused himself informed the commission of offence to P.W.1 and took him to the place of offence. Assuming for a while that the 1st accused
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 43 Sessions Case 10/2024
had such an ill-motive, he would have mislead P.W.1 and would have taken him to different place, but not to the exact crime scene. Thus, this Court is of firm view that the accused had no intention to cause disappearance, as such, the accused are not liable for the charge under Section 201 of IPC.
35.During arguments, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the because of the acts of the 1st accused, the son of the deceased lost the affection of his mother and became victim by the acts of the accused and hence they are entitled for victim compensation and relied on judgment reported in Shaik Ahamad Basha Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 3 wherein it was observed that:
“Section 357-A of Cr.P.C. was introduced by Act 5 of 2009 with the object of enabling the Court to direct the State to pay compensation to the victim where the compensation under Sections 357, Cr.P.C. is not adequate... ”
The learned Public Prosecutor also referred to copy of the Government Order of Andhra Pradesh State in G.O.Ms.No.43, Dt.15.04.2015. A perusal of the said G.O, at para No.7, procedure for grant of compensation is mentioned, under which, it is mentioned that “whenever a recommendation is made by the Court or on an application by any victim or his/her dependent under Sub
Section (2) of Section 357-A of the Act to the District Legal Services
Authority, the District Legal Services Authority shall examine the case and verify the contents of the claim with regard to the loss or injury caused to the victim arising out of the reported criminal activity and the District Legal
Services Authority, Vizianagaram may call for any other relevant information necessary in order to determine genuineness of the claims. After verifying the claim and on enquiry, shall award compensation, within two months, in 3 Criminal Appeal 930/2010 of Andhra High Court, dt.14.03.2016
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 44 Sessions Case 10/2024
accordance with the provisions of the Scheme. Considering the submissions of the learned Public Prosecutor so also in view of the ratio in Shaik Ahamad
Basha case (supra) and the G.O.Ms.No.43, Dt.15.04.2015, even though the accused was not found to be the guilt of the offence, but in view of admitted fact of death of deceased, which is a great peril to P.W.13/Yaswanth, this
Court is inclined to order for victim compensation to him. Even though the prosecution could not establish the guilt of the accused as discussed supra, but it does not a bar to award to Victim Compensation as enumerated in
Section 357-A of Cr.P.C., Accordingly, this point is answered. Accordingly, this point is answered.
32.In the result, the 1st accused is found not guilty for the charge under Section 201 of IPC and accordingly he is acquitted for the said charge, however, the 1st accused is found guilty for the charge under Section 302 of
IPC and accordingly he is convicted under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C. for the said charge. Whereas, the 2nd accused is found not guilty for the charges under Section 302 and 201 of IPC and accordingly, she is acquitted under
Section 235(1) for the said charges. The bail bonds of the 2nd accused, if any, shall stand canceled. The 2nd accused is directed to execute bond for her due appearance before the Hon’ble High Court in the event of appeal by the
Prosecution.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this 03 rd day of April, 2024.
Sd/- B.Sai Kalyan Chakravathi
Sessions Judge,
Vizianagaram 03.04.2025 (At bench):
The 1st accused is questioned with regard to quantum of sentence, he pleaded mercy. Hence, taking into consideration the gravity of offence and
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 45 Sessions Case 10/2024
nature of crime, the 1st accused is sentenced to imprisonment for life and also to pay fine of ₹.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only), in default of payment of fine, to suffer Simple Imprisonment for one month for the charge under
Section 302 of IPC. The remand period of the accused, if any, shall be given set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.,
M.O.13/Bike shall be returned subject to production of necessary documents and M.Os.1 to 12 and 14 to 16 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.
The 1st Accused is appraised of his right to appeal before the Hon’ble
High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi and free legal aid.
The son of the deceased i.e. P.W.13/Jodu Yaswanth, who is the victim, is at liberty to file an appropriate application before the District Legal
Services Authority, Vizianagaram, for grant of victim compensation under
Andhra Pradesh Victim Compensation Scheme, 2015 under Section 357-A of
Cr.P.C.,
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 03 rd day of April, 2024
Sd/- B.Sai Kalyan Chakravathi
Sessions Judge,
Vizianagaram.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For Prosecution: For Defence: P.W.1:Golla Venkata Raja Ravindra P.W.2:Pogasati Ganesh P.W.3:Jodu Ramulamma P.W.4:Chebrolu Siva P.W.5:Jodi Mutyala Rao P.W.6:Geethala Rajesh P.W.7:Geethala Devi P.W.8:Yesalapau Rani P.W.9:Sarapinti Eswara Rao
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 46 Sessions Case 10/2024
P.W.10:Bobbadi LakshmiNone P.W.11:Togara Sunitha P.W.12:G.Jagadeswara Rao, IT Core Team P.W.13:Jodu Yeswanth P.W.14:Chebrolu Mahesh P.W.15:Patnala Madhu, V.R.O., P.W.16:Dr.V.Koteswara Rao, Deputy Civil Surgeon. P.W.17::K.Geetha Madhuri, Assistant Director P.W.18::D.M.G.N.Prasada Rao, Tahsildar P.W.19::S.V.R.Raju, Inspector of Police P.W.20::S.Bala Surya Rao, Inspector of Police P.W.21: :S.Surya Kiran Sri, Junior Civil
Judge
Exhibits Marked For Prosecution: Ex.P.1:Report given by P.W.1 Ex.P.2:Extra judicial confession Ex.P.3:Compact Disc Ex.P.4:Compact Disc Ex.P.5:Relevant portion in confession statement Ex.P.6:Relevant portion in confession statement Ex.P.7:Mediators’ report Ex.P.8:Scene observation report Ex.P.9:161, Cr.P.C.Statement of P.W.6 Ex.P.10161, Cr.P.C.Statement of P.W.10 Ex.P.11Inquest panchanama Ex.P.12Mediators’ report
Ex.P.13R.F.S.L.Report Ex.P.14Letter Ex.P.15F.I.R. Ex.P.16Altered FIR Ex.P.17:D.N.A Report Ex.P.18Certificate for CCTV footage. Ex.P.19161, Cr.P.C.Statement of P.W.3 Ex.P.20161, Cr.P.C.Statement of P.W.4 Ex.P.21161, Cr.P.C.Statement of P.W.5 Ex.P.22161, Cr.P.C.Statement of P.W.6 Ex.P.23161, Cr.P.C.Statement of P.W.7 Ex.P.24161, Cr.P.C.Statement of P.W.8
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 47 Sessions Case 10/2024
For Accused:
Ex.D.1:Relevant portion in 161, Cr.P.C.Statement of P.W.3 Ex.D.2:Relevant portion in 161, Cr.P.C.Statement of P.W.4 Ex.D.3:Relevant portion in 161, Cr.P.C.Statement of P.W.5 Ex.D.4:Relevant portion in 161, Cr.P.C.Statement of P.W.7
Material Objects Marked
M.O.1: Bones pieces M.O.2: Metal Bangles M.O.3: Kalla Mattelu M.O.4: Burnt Kallu pattilu M.O.5: Ash at first scene of offence M.O.6: Half-burnt green cloth piece M.O.7: Half burnt hair M.O.8: Hair M.O.9: Three stone M.O.10: Small stones (kankara raallu) M.O.11: Ash packet M.O.12: Kankara matti M.O.13: Bike M.O.14: Pipe M.O.15: Bottle M.O.16: Match Box
Sd/- B.Sai Kalyan Chakravathi
Sessions Judge,
Vizianagaram
Copy to the Registrar (Judicial), Hon’ble High Court of A.P. (By way of C.D.) Copy to the Superintendent of Police, Vizianagaram and Director of Prosecution (through Public Prosecutor, Sessions Court, Vizianagaram) Copy to the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Vizianagarammaternal
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 48 Sessions Case 10/2024
IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS JUDGE, VIZIANAGARAM
Present: Sri B.Sai Kalyan Chakravarthi,
Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram
Thursday, the 03rd day of April, 2025
Sessions Case No.10/2024
1 Nameof:Staterepresented bytheInspector of Police, Kothavalasa Police Station Complainant 2 Name of the Accused1. Jodu Naga Raju, S/o late Demudu, aged 33 years, ST Mannemdora by caste, Jodumeraka village, Appannadorapalem Panchayat, Kothavalasa Mandal.
2 Eeti Mounika, D/o late Beemraju, 23 years, ST Mannemdora by caste, rest ditto.
3Date of offence:28.01.2022
4.Place of offence:at Peda Goppu in Survey No.120 of Baligattam revenue village outskirts of Ardhannapalem village of Kothavalasa Mandal in an isolated area covered with deep bushes 5Date of complaint:04.02.2022 6Date of apprehension:24.04.2024 7Whether the Accused is in :On bail jail or bail 8Date of commencement of :16.07.2024 trial 9Date of close of trial:07.02.2025
10.Date of Sentence of :03.04.2025 Judgment
EXPLANATION FOR DELAY IN SESSIONS COURT:- After receipt of the record from Committal Court, the case was numbered as Sessions Case 08/2024. On 04.07.2024 charge framed and trial schedule was fixed and the Trial was started on 23.10.2024. P.Ws.1 to 21 were examined and Ex.P.1 to P.24 and Exs.D.1 to D.4 were marked and M.Os.1 to 16 were exhibited. The Accused is examined U/s 313 Cr.P.C on 29.11.2024 and 20.02.2025. Arguments heard finally on 25.03.2025. Judgment was pronounced on 03.04.2025, thus, there is no delay.
Sd/- B.Sai Kalyan Chakravathi i
Sessions Judge,
Vizianagaram
IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS JUDGE, VIZIANAGARAM
Present: Sri B.Sai Kalyan Chakravarthi,
Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram
Thursday, the 03rd day of April, 2025
Sessions Case No.10/2024
1 Nameof: StaterepresentedbytheInspector of ComplainantPolice, Kothavalasa Police Station 2 Name of the Accused1. Jodu Naga Raju, S/o late Demudu, aged 33 years, ST Mannemdora by caste, Jodumeraka village,AppannadorapalemPanchayat, Kothavalasa Mandal. 2 Eeti Mounika, D/o late Beemraju, 23 years, ST Mannemdora by caste, rest ditto.
:302 of IPC: Punishment for murder 3 Charges 201 of IPC:Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender.
4 Plea of Accused: Not Guilty 5 Finding of the Judge1st accused is guilty for the charge U/s.302 of IPC and both accused are found not guilty for charge U/s.201 of IPC. 2nd Accused is not guilty of charge U/s.302 of IPC. : In the result, 1st accused is found not
6. Sentence or Order guilty for the charge under Section 201 of IPC and accordingly he is acquitted for the said charge, however, the 1st accused is found guilty for the charge under Section 302 of IPC and accordingly he is convicted under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C. for the said charge. Whereas, the 2nd accused is found not guilty for the charges under Section 302 and 201 of IPC and accordingly, she is acquitted under Section 235(1) for the said charges. The bail bonds of the 2nd accused, if any, shall stand canceled. The 2nd accused is directed to execute bond for her due appearance before the Hon’ble High Court in the event of appeal by the Prosecution. the 1st accused is sentenced to imprisonment for life and also to pay fine of ₹.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only), in default of payment of fine, to suffer Simple Imprisonment for one month for the charge under Section 302 of IPC. The remand period of the accused, if any, shall be given set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C., 7 Prosecution conducted by: Public Prosecutor, Vizianagaram 8 Defence conducted: Sri T h a t a R a j u Advocate for the 1st Accused
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 2 Sessions Case 10/2024
Sri Ch.Praveen Raju, Advocate for the 2nd Accused
J U D G M E N T
01. The Inspector of Police of Kothavalasa Police Station laid charge sheet against the Accused alleging that on 28.01.2022 at Peda
Goppu in Survey No.120 of Baligattam revenue village outskirts of
Ardhannapalem village of Kothavalasa Mandal in an isolated area covered with deep bushes, the 1st accused committed murder of his wife/Jodu
Lakshmi (herein after referred as “deceased”), in Crime No.24/2022of
Kothavalasa Police Station under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC.
02.The brief case of the Prosecution is that the deceased is the legally wedded wife of the 1st accused and that on 30.01.2022, the 1st accused lodged a report with the Police stating that his wife/Jodu
Lakshmi went to Sairam Sweets shop for attending work on 28.01.2022 at about 08:30 a.m. but she did not return even late night, upon that he went to the shop and asked the Owner of the said shop, for which, the
Owner informed that after completion of work, she went away, then, he searched for his wife in all possible places, but could not trace, hence lodged the report with the Police for taking action and at the time of her missing, she wore green colour dress. Basing on the said report, S.Bala
Surya Rao/Inspector of Police (L.W.32) registered a case in
Cr.No.24/2022 as “woman missing” and entrusted further investigation to A.Rahiman, ASI (L.W.31).
2.1.On 04.02.2022, Galla Venkata Raju (L.W.1) went to
Kothavalasa Police Station along with the 1st accused and presented a
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 3 Sessions Case 10/2024
report along with Extra Judicial Confession Statement of 1st accused and surrendered him before the Police. The report of Venkata Raju is that on 04.02.2022 at about 07:00 hours, while he was at his residence/Kothavalasa, the 1st accused came to his house and stated that he married one Lakshmi about 08 years back and they were blessed with a male child, thereafter, he suspected her fidelity and thereby he intended to eliminate her and marry the 2nd accused and when he asked his wife for divorce, she refused, at last, he intended to kill her in order to marry the 2nd accused, and, accordingly, on 28.01.2022 night at about 07:30 p.m. he took away his wife from car stand of Kothavalasa on his scooty bearing registration No.AP 39 FU 3678 by making her to believe that they are going to Teertham at Gollapeta, and proceeded towards
Peda Goppu down by Survey No.120 of Baligattam revenue village of
Ardhannapalem village outskirts and took her to an isolated place in deep bushes and killed her by beating her with a stone on the back side of her head for 3 or 4 times indiscriminately after throwing her over the stones, then, he kept sticks and palmyrah leaves over her dead body and poured petrol and lit fire and then he went away to Gollapeta village and on the next day i.e. on 29.01.2022 morning while, he went to same place, he found that some skull was not burnt properly, upon that he took away the same with some distance and lit fire by pouring petrol, by which time, he heard sound of a motorcycle, on that, he afraid that his identity would be revealed, and fled away from there, later, he went to his village and informed the village elders that his wife was found missing and then, he lodged a missing complaint at Kothavalasa Police station on
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 4 Sessions Case 10/2024
30.01.2022. Thus, basing on the report of Venkata Raju, the Inspector of
Police (L.W.32) altered the FIR from “Woman missing” to Section 302 and 201 of IPC on 04.02.2022. During the course of investigation, the
Inspector of Police arrested the accused in the presence of mediators viz.,
Venkata Raju (L.W.1) and Gokada Adavi Naidu (L.W.17) since the accused voluntarily confessed the offence in their presence that he killed his wife with pre-plan and conspiracy of the 2nd accused. The
Investigating Officer examined the witnesses and recorded their statements and produced the 1st accused before the Court for judicial remand. As a part of investigation, the Investigating Officer visited the scene of offence, observed the same, prepared rough sketch, and, thereafter on credible information, he along with the above referred mediators went to Gidijala village and apprehended the 2nd accused and she also voluntarily confessed the offence and arrested her and produced her before the Court for judicial remand. K.Geetha Madhuri, Scientific
Officer, RFSL, Visakhapatnam (L.W.27) analyzed the blood samples and gave her report opining that in item Nos.1 and 2, human blood is detected with “A” group blood. The Mandal Executive Magistrate,
Kothavalasa (L.W.29) conducted inquest over the dead body, at the time of inquest, the 1st accused was also present, after inquest, forwarded the dead body for postmortem examination and after receipt of medical reports and after completion of investigation, he filed the charge sheet.
03.The learned Magistrate, took cognizance for the charges under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC videP.R.C.No.01/2023 committed the case to the Court of Sessions since the offence under Sections 302 IPC is
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 5 Sessions Case 10/2024
exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, duly furnishing the case papers to the Accused.
04.After appearance of the Accused before this Court, they were examined and charges under Sections 302 and 201 are framed against the accused and read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
05.During the trial, the prosecution in support of their case examined P.Ws 1 to 20, got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.24 and exhibited
M.Os.1 to 16.
06.After completion of the prosecution evidence, the Accused were examined under Sections 313 Cr.P.C., by putting the incriminating material in the evidence of prosecution witnesses against the Accused, for which, the Accused denied the same, and reported no defence evidence, but got marked Exs.D.1 to D.4.
07.Heard both sides.
08.Now, the points for determination are:
Whether the Prosecution could bring home the guilt of the accused for charges under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?
Point:
09.
Before adverting to the conclusion with regard to the point-in-
issue, it is apposite to refer to the oral and documentary evidence available onrecord In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined the Village Revenue Officer to whom the accused give extra judicial confession as P.W.1, who stated that he is working as V.R.O,
Relli village. On 04.02.2022 at about 07:00 a.m while he was at his home, the 1st accused came to his house and confessed the commission of offence and he
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 6 Sessions Case 10/2024
drafted extra judicial confession, wherein he/PW.1 and Accused No.1 signed and later on as per confession, Accused No.1 burnt the deceased in cashew tope of Baligattam village and he/P.W.1 asked Accused No.1 to show the place where he burnt the deceased, accordingly Accused No.1 took him to cashew tope of Baligattam village, there he/P.W.1 saw the burnt ash and bones from there, he/P.W.1 took Accused No.1 to Police Station and surrender before
Inspector of Police at about 09:30 a.m., he submitted Ex.P.2/extra judicial confession along with his Ex.P.1/report and he signed on both and he/P.W.1 informed same to our Tahsildar.
9.1.P.W.1 further stated that Accused No.1 took him/P.W.1, Gokada
Adavi Naidu/L.W. 17 and the Police to the scene of offence along with clues team, videographer and Accused No.1 explained the way how he committed the offence and shown them the place where Accused No.1 burnt the body and the Inspector of Police identified ashes at two places and at the first place, they observed ashes, 7 (Seven) bones, metal bangles, mattelu, kalla pattilu, and at the second place half burnt hair, normal hair, ashes and the second place is at a distance of 20 feet from the first place and that the Inspector of
Police also seized blood stained stones and that both the scene of offence were videographed and seized material object and drafted scene observation report and they signed on it.
9.2.P.W.1 further stated that that he identified Ex.P.3/videograph of the Ex.P.4/scene of offence and M.O.1 is bones pieces-7 and M.O.2 is two metal bangles and M.O.3 is “Kalu mattelu”, M.O.4 is burnt “kalu patti”,
M.O.5 is ash at first scene, M.O.6 is half burnt green cloth piece, M.O.7 is half burnt hair, M.O.8 is hair, M.O.9 is three stones, M.O.10 is small stones
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 7 Sessions Case 10/2024
(Kankara Rallu). M.O.11 is ash packet, M.O.12 is kankara matti, he also witness to the Inquest conducted by L.W.29/D.M.G.N.Prasada Rao at that time Inspector of Police, village elders and panchayatdars were also present and Inquest Report was drafted and the Panchayatdars opined that the deceased died due to setting ablaze and that on the same day at the request of
Police, he/P.W.1 went to Police Station and Inspector of Police requested her and L.W.17/Gokada Adavinaidu to act as mediators and in their presence.
9.3.P.W.1 further stated that Accused No.1 confessed the commission of offence and the Police drafted confession statement in their presence and
Accused No.1 further stated that Accused No.1 have kept the bike No.AP 39
FU 3678, pipe, bottle and match box used for commission of offence at his house and stated that Accused No.1 would show and Ex.P.5 is therelevant portion of confession statement and in pursuance confession, Accused No.1 lead them to his house at Jodumeraka and showed the bike, pipe, bottle and match box and Ex.P.6 is relevant portion of confession statement and Ex.P.7 is seizure report and that M.O.13 is bike No.AP 39 FU 3678 and that M.O.14 is pipe and M.O.15 is bottle and that M.O.16 is match box.
9.4. During his cross-examination by the learned Counsel for the 1st accused, P.W.1 admitted that he has not mentioned that at what time he went to scene of offence and how much time he spent at scene of offence. Even though he did not state the time particulars, but the same cannot be considered as a serious lapse since his role is regarding recording the extra judicial confession of the 1st accused and surrendering him to the Police.
P.W.1 stated that he did not collect the bones and ash, but he added that clues team has collected. He further stated that he has not videographed and
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 8 Sessions Case 10/2024
photographed the scene of offence but he added that clues team has videographed and photographed the scene of offence. Even though P.W.1 did not do the said things, he clearly stated that the Clues Team did those things.
Hence, this Court did not find any fault with P.W.1 in not doing with those things. P.W.1 admitted that M.Os.2 to 4 are usually available in market, may be the said fact is true, but in the absence of any contra material by the accused, this Court is unable to convince with the contention of the accused that they are planted or set up for this case. P.W.1 admitted that he visited the scene of offence at the first instance as the accused took him to the scene of offence later on informed to the police about the scene of offence and he also admitted that it is mentioned in Ex.P.8 that by the time he and accused and
Inspector of Police reached the scene of offence the clues team was already there and he added that by the time they reached scene of offence clues team also came to the scene of offence and he also admitted that fingerprints were not obtained by clues team on material objects. According to P.W.1, he drafted the mediators report/Ex.P.7. P.W.1 admitted that date is not mentioned beneath the signatures of the accused in Ex.P.8. Though the date is not mentioned underneath the signature, in view of the consistent evidence of P.W.1, this Court did not find that the non-mentioning the date is fatal to the case of prosecution since the entire episode took place two or three days after the death of the deceased.
9.5.During his cross-examination by the learned Counsel for the 2nd accused, he admitted in Ex.P.1 he mentioned that the 1st accused killed the deceased as there is illicit intimacy with one Demudu of
Bheemannadorapalem. Relying on this admission, the learned Counsel for
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 9 Sessions Case 10/2024
the 2nd accused submitted that there is no illegal intimacy in between the accused 1 and 2 at any time and that this accused is not at all responsible for the killing of deceased by the 1st accused and the 1st accused might have killed the deceased suspecting her fidelity and intimacy with a person by name
Demudu of Bheemannadorapalem village. This Court finds force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the 2nd accused since at the earliest point of time, P.W.1 mentioned the reason for killing of deceased by 1st accused for her intimacy with another person, but not because of any alleged intimacy in between the 1st and the 2nd accused. Hence, from this admission of P.W.1, this Court holds that the 2nd accused cannot be fastened with any liability in the offence.
10.The co-traveler of the deceased to whom the deceased used to report about the harassment caused by the 1st accused was examined by the prosecution as P.W.2,who stated that he is a private employee and that about 2 ½ years back, he used reside at Oppangi village and that he and the deceased used to travel by bus from their village to Rajam and that the deceased used to work in Bakery shop at Rajam, thereafter, the deceased called him and informed that she got married to a person by name
Nagaraju/Accused No.1 and thereafter 1st accused and deceased lived happily for some time and gave birth to one child by name Yeswanth and later the deceased informed that Accused No.1 developed illicit intimacy with the 2nd accused, and that the deceased informed him that Accused No.1 used to harass her and that about 2 ½ years back, he came to know that deceased died and Accused No.1 caused the death of the deceased and accused confessed the commission of offence before P.W.1 and that L.W.3/Jodu
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 10 Sessions Case 10/2024
Ramulamma performed the marriage of Accused No.1 with the deceased and after the marriage, the deceased used to work in bakery shop at Kothavalasa and that he/P.W.2 was examined by the Police and recorded his statement 10.1. During his cross-examination, P.W.2 stated that the deceased is his distant relative. The learned Counsel for the 1st accused argued that since in view of his relationship with the deceased, P.W.2 is speaking false. But, this Court is unable to convince with the said submission since there are catena of decisions which speak that mere relationship cannot be a ground to discard the evidence of a witness, unless the contra is proved or suspicious circumstances established by the Accused. He stated that he cannot say the names of the parents of the deceased. Being a relative of deceased, P.W.1 might have known the names of parents of deceased, however, even not disclosing the name of parents of the deceased cannot be a ground to doubt the veracity in his testimony since he categorically stated that he came to know about the harassment caused by the 1st accused to the deceased.
10.2. During his cross-examination by the learned Counsel for the 2nd accused, he stated that the deceased used to inform him about the illicit intimacy of the accused 1 and 2 over phone, but he cannot say the phone numbers. If really, P.W.2 is informed by the deceased about the intimacy in between the accused, he being a relative would have reacted and would have, at least, informed the same to any of his other relatives or at least, he would have questioned the 1st accused, but he did not so, furthermore, he could not also give any mobile number through which he was informed by deceased about the alleged intimacy in between the accused 1 and 2. Hence, without there being any convincing and cogent material, this Court is unable to accept
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 11 Sessions Case 10/2024
the evidence of P.W.2 with regard to the alleged intimacy in between the accused 1 and 2 and merely basing on the said assertion of P.W.2, this Court is not inclined to held the 2nd accused is the root cause for the offence committed by the 1st accused.
11.The person in whose presence the marriage of the 1st accused and deceased was performed was examined by the prosecution as P.W.3, who stated that she is a Surpanch of Appannadorapalem village and that the 1st accused is her relative and the deceased belongs to Therlam village and that the 1st accused and deceased came to him and informed that they loved each other on that she, L.W.7/Jodu Narasimhulu, L.W.9/Chebrolu Ramu and some elders took them to Simhachalam and performed the marriage of the 1st accused and deceased about 8 years back and both of them lived happily for four years and deceased gave birth to a child by name Yeswanth and that the house of the 1st accused is near to her house and that after four years of their marriage, and that 1st accused fell in love with the 2nd accused, who is also reside near to her/P.W3 house and that after four years of the marriage disputes started between 1st accused and deceased and that the deceased used to work in sweet shop at Kothavalasa and the 1st accused did not work and demanded divorce from the deceased as the 1st accused intended to marry the 2nd accused.
11.1. P.W.3 further stated that deceased came to her and informed her about the disputes between the 1st accused and deceased and that the deceased informed her that she is not willing to give divorce and the 1st accused started physical and mental harassment and later deceased gave complaint to Police and that deceased used to come to her/P.W.3 regularly and
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 12 Sessions Case 10/2024
informed her about her family affairs and that several times panchayat was held and they counseled the 1st accused but of no use and that the deceased did not come to house on 28.01.2022 and they made the 1st accused to give complaint on 02.02.2022 and they all searched for deceased and that Chebrolu
Siva/L.W.5, Jodi Mutyala Rao (L.Ws.4 and 5) informed her that they saw the 1st accused and deceased while they were going on a bike, in the evening hours of 28.01.2022 at Girijala junction and that the 1st Accused confessed the commission of offence before P.W.1 and that she was examined by the Police and she also gave her statement before Magistrate and she was present at the time of Inquest.
11.2During her cross-examination by the learned Counsel for the 1st accused, P.W.3 stated that she stated that about two months prior to the death of the deceased, she gave police report against the 1st accused and the
Police admonished the 1st accused. She stated that she was present when the 1st accused gave complaint regarding the missing of the deceased to the Police.
11.3. During her cross-examination by the learned Counsel for the 2nd accused, P.W.3, upon confrontation of her 161, Cr.P.C. statement, which is marked as Ex.D.1, wherein, it was mentioned that :
“సు�మారు� రెం�డు� సు�వత్స�రుము�ల నుం��డి నాగరాజు త్సనుం భారు� భీమునుం�దొరువలసు గ్రా� మానికి చెం�దినుం దేము�డు� తో అక్ర"ము సు�బం�ధం� పెట్టు�' కొని తిరిగి చు�నుం�ట్టు�- అనుం�మానుం� పెట్టు�' కొని ఇరు�వురు0 గొడువల� పడు�త్స��డేవారు�. దాని కారుణము�గ్రా ఇద్ద9రికీ మునుంసు;రు'<ల� వచ్చా>యి. ”
But,she denied the same and hence the contradiction though marked for the accused is of no avail. According to P.W.3 a panchayat was convened about four years back as regards the alleged illegal intimacy in between the accused 1 and 2, however, she made it clear that for the said panchayat the 2nd accused was not called. When the alleged panchayat is purported to be held to enquire
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 13 Sessions Case 10/2024
about the alleged intimacy in between the accused 1 and 2, the non-calling of 2nd accused, against whom a severe allegation is attributed, creates a doubt in the mind of the Court since P.W.3 did not make any venture even at least mention the names of the so called gentlemen mediators who held the so called panchayat. Hence, this Court is unable to place reliance on the version of P.W.3 with regard to holding of panchayat to discuss or enquire about the alleged illegal intimacy in between the accused 1 and 2, accordingly, this
Court is not inclined to attach any liability to the 2nd accused in the crime.
12.The prosecution also examined the person, in whose presence the marriage of 1st accused and deceased was performed and also to prove the harassment caused by the 1st accused to the deceased so also present at the time of inquest, as P.W.4, who stated that he is a resident of Jodimeraka village and he is running a cell point at Kothavalasa and he knows both the accused and the deceased and that the deceased belong to Therlam village.
P.W.3, L.W.7/Jodu Narasimhulu, L.W.9/Chebrolu Ramu and some elders took 1st accused and deceased to Simhachalam and performed their marriage about 8 years back and that 1st accused and the deceased lived happily for four years and deceased gave birth to a child by name Yeswanth and thereafter, 1st accused fell in love with the 2nd accused and that after four years of the marriage disputes started between 1st accused and deceased and that the deceased used to work in sweet shop at Kothavalasa and 1st accused did not work and demanded divorce from the deceased as 1st accused intended to marry the 2nd accused and he further stated that the 1st accused started physical and mental harassment and later deceased gave complaint to Police.
Several times panchayat was held and elders counseled 1st accused but of no
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 14 Sessions Case 10/2024
use and that on 29.01.2022, he came to know that the deceased was missing and he went to P.W.3 and informed her that while he was at Kothavalasa Car stand on road leading to Vizianagaram then 1st accused came there on his
M.O.13/Scooty and deceased came there and both went on scooty towards
Vizianagaram and subsequently Accused No.1 gave missing complaint to
Police and 1st accused confessed the commission of offence before P.W.1 and in in pursuance of confession 1st accused lead them to scene of offence and he was examined by the Police and he also gave his statement before Magistrate and he was present at the time of Inquest.
12.1. During his cross-examination by the learned Counsel for the 1st accused, P.W.4 stated that stated that he is a ward member since three years under the control of P.W.3 and also stated that he cannot say the name of sweet shop in which the deceased used to work. P.W.4 though unable to say the name of the sweet shop in which the deceased was working prior to her death cannot be a ground to discard his entire evidence. Except the suggestions, which are denied by the witness, the 1st accused could not fetch any material in his favour.
12.2. During his cross-examination by the learned Counsel for the 2nd accused, P.W.4 stated that he did not inform to parents of deceased about her marriage and death and according to him P.W.3 and elders performed the marriage of the 1st accused and deceased at Simhachalam, but he does not know the date of their marriage. His 161, Cr.P.C. statement is confronted to him, wherein it was mentioned as follows:
“సు�మారు� రెం�డు� సు�వత్స�రుము�ల నుం��డి నాగరాజు త్సనుం భారు� భీమునుం�దొరువలసు అనే వ�కిA తో అక్ర"ము సు�బం�ధం� పెట్టు�' కొని తిరిగి గ్రా� మానికి చెం�దినుం దేము�డు� అనుం�మానుం� పెట్టు�' కొని ఇరు�వురు0 గొడువల� పడు�త్స��డేవారు�. దాని చు�నుం�ట్టు�- కారుణము�గ్రా ఇద్ద9రికీ మునుంసు;రు'<ల� వచ్చి> మాట్టు-ము0ట్టు లేక్ర��డా ఒకే ఇ�టిలో
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 15 Sessions Case 10/2024
వేరేగ్రా ఉం�డేవారు�. వారు� త్సరు�చు� గొడువల� పడు�చు��డుడు� నేనుం�, సురు;�చ్ అముM/ రాము�లముM, గీత్సల దేవి, మురి కొ�త్స ము�దిమి లేని పోని అనుం�మానాల� పెట్టు�' కోవద్ద9ని నాగరాజునుం� ము�ద్దలిం�చ్చినాము�. ”
P.W.4 though admitted the said statement, which marked as Ex.D.2, it is no way helpful to the accused, since, the said statement of P.W.4 amply proves strain relation in between the 1st accused and the deceased and from the above statement, an adverse inference can be drawn regarding the ‘motive’ of the accused to get rid of her for the reason he is suspecting the character and fidelity of the deceased.
13.The person who witnessed the 1st accused took away the deceased lastly was examined by the prosecution as P.W.5, who stated that he is a resident of Jodimeraka village and he is an Auto Rickshaw driver and that he knows both the accused and the deceased and that the deceased belong to
Therlam village. P.W.3, L.W.7/Jodu Narasimhulu, L.W.9/Chebrolu Ramu and some elders took 1st Accused and deceased to Simhachalam and performed their marriage about 8 years back and both 1st Accused and the deceased lived happily for four years and deceased gave birth to a child by name
Yeswanth and that after four years of their marriage, 1st Accused fell in love with the 2nd accused and thereafter disputes started between 1st Accused and deceased and that deceased used to work in sweet shop at Kothavalasa and 1st
Accused did not work and demanded divorce from the deceased as he intended to marry the 2nd accused. P.W.5 further stated that 1st accused started physical and mental harassment, later deceased gave complaint to
Police and that several times panchayat was held and elders counseled the 1st accused, but of no use and that on 29.01.2022, he/P.W.5 came to know that the deceased was missing and he went to P.W.3 and informed her that on
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 16 Sessions Case 10/2024
28.01.2022 at about 07:30 p.m., while he was at Kirana shop, Girijala junction, then 1st accused came there on his Scooty and deceased came there and both went on scooty towards Vizianagaram and thereafter the 1st accused gave missing complaint to Police and that the 1st accused confessed the commission of offence before P.W.1 and in pursuance of confession, the 1st accused lead them to the scene of offence and he was examined by the Police and he also gave his statement before Magistrate and that he was present at the time of Inquest.
13.1. The entire cross-examination of P.W.5 is very similar to that of the cross-examination of P.W.4, hence, discussing again would be nothing but a futile exercise. However, it can be concluded that even though P.Ws.4 and 5 were cross-examined by the learned Counsel for the 1st accused nothing worthwhile could be elicited in favour of the 1st accused. Similarly, the evidence of P.Ws.5 and 6 is not at all sufficient to connect the 2nd accused with the offence committed by the 1st accused and this Court did not find any ground from the evidence of P.Ws.4 and 5 that the 2nd accused is the root cause for the death of the deceased. However, upon confronting his 161,
Cr.P.C. statement, P.W.5 and the same is marked as Ex.D.3, wherein it was mentioned that:
“నాగరాజు, నా వదినుం పై లేని పోనీ అనుం�మానాల� పెట్టు�' కొని నా అనుం�య్య� సు�బం�ధం� పెట్టు�' కొని భీమునుం�దొరుపాలెం� గ్రా� మానికి చెం�దినుం దేము�డు� అనుం� తిడు�త్స0 కొడు�త్స0 తిరు�గ��ద్దని ఆమెతో సు�మారు� రెం�డు� సు�వత్స�రుము�ల ఉం�ట్టు�నా�డు�, ఈ విషయ్యమై మా గ్రా� ము సురు;�చ్ జోడు� రాము�లముM, చేబ్రోa ల� శివ, గీత్సల దేవి మురికొ�త్స ము�ది ప�చ్చాయ్యతీ పెటి' మా అనుం�య్య� నాగరాజునుం� గటి'గ్రా తిటి'నారు�. ఈ క్ర"ము�లో మా అనుం�య్య� మా వదినుంతో మాట్టు ము�తి లేక్ర��డా ... ”
But, P.W.5 denied the said statement, however, a perusal of the said statement, it is clear that both the 1st accused and deceased have no cordial relations and the 1st accused used to scold her on the premise of ‘illicit
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 17 Sessions Case 10/2024
intimacy’, which also leads to draw an adverse inference against that the 1st accused inimical disposed of against the deceased and waiting for an opportunity to get rid off. Hence, though the accused sought to rely on
Ex.D.3, the same is no way helpful to him since, in Ex.D.3, it is clear that there are strained relations in between the accused and the deceased.
14.The prosecution examined one of the residents of
Ardhannapalem village as P.W.6, who stated that the 1st accused and deceased lived happily for four years and deceased gave birth to a son by name
Yeswanth. He pleaded ignorance regarding the reasons for the quarrels in between the 1st accused and the deceased. He also stated that he does not know anything about the case. Hence, the learned Public Prosecutor declared the witness hostile and cross-examined him, but during his cross- examination, nothing worthwhile could be elicited in favour of the prosecution theory, as such, the evidence of P.W.6 is of no avail to the case of prosecution.
15.The prosecution examined the shop owner, who witnessed the deceased on 28.01.2022 at her shop, as P.W.7, but she stated that on 30.01.2022 evening the 1st accused came to her and told her that the deceased was not found and he gave complaint to the Police, except that she did not state anything, as such, the learned Public Prosecutor declared her hostile and cross-examined her, but nothing worthwhile could be elicited. However, during her cross-examination by the learned Counsel for the 1st accused, she stated that she went to the Police Station after four or five days after the incident and that she did not see the CCTV footage. During her cross- examination by the learned Counsel for the 2nd accused, she denied that she stated before the Police as in Ex.D.4, wherein it was mentioned that:
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 18 Sessions Case 10/2024
“తే. 28.01.2022 ది శు�క్ర"వారు� రాతిf ముgత్స�రాల� లక్ష్మిi డు0�టీ దిగి వసు�k �డుగ్రా కొత్సkవలసు కారు- స్టాం' �డు� ద్దగmరిలో నాగరాజు బం�డి ఎకిo�చు�కొని విజయ్యనుంగరు� రోడు�r లో ” వెళ్ళuట్టు� మా సురు;�చుముMక్ర� చెంప;గ్రా నాక్ర� సురు;�చుముM దాvరా తెలింసినుంది
Though P.W.7 denied the statement and though P.W.7 turned hostile, still the content in the above statement goes to show that the 1st accused was the person with whom lastly the deceased moved. Hence, though the contradiction in the statement of P.W.7 was got marked by the accused, it has no much importance and basing on the same, the accused cannot plead innocence and exemption.
16.The person to whom the deceased informed about the harassment caused by the 1st accused towards her as P.W.8, who stated that about three months prior to the death, the deceased came to her and informed that the 1st accused is harassing her and he developed illicit intimacy with another woman and further stated that on 02.02.2022, the 1st accused came to her house and informed that the deceased was missing and further informed that he gave report to the Police and she further stated that the 1st accused asked her to say before the Police that the deceased came along with one person wearing helmet and deceased along with that person left that place, but she did not accept the request of the 1st accused and later the 1st accused called her husband and also requested the same to her husband, for which, her husband also did not agree and that on 04.02.2022, she came to know through her husband that the deceased died. The learned Public Prosecutor declared the witness hostile and cross-examined her wherein she admitted that she stated before the Police that two-to-three times she called the 1st accused scolded him for his behaviour and that the 1st accused harass the deceased to give divorce.
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 19 Sessions Case 10/2024
16.1. During her cross-examination by the learned Counsel for the 1st accused, P.W.8 stated that she never went to the house of the deceased and the 1st accused and admitted that she came to know the death of deceased through P.W.3. Even though the evidence of P.W.8 was declared hostile by the learned Public Prosecutor, still the fact remains for consideration from her evidence is that she was asked by the accused to say before the Police that the ‘deceased came along with one person wearing helmet and deceased along with that person left that place...’, which clearly manifests the intention of the accused to eliminate the deceased.
17.The brother of the deceased was examined by the prosecution as
P.W.9, who stated that he is a resident of Vuddavolu village and he is a carpenter and that the deceased is his sister and she was given in marriage with the 1st accused about 8 years prior to her death and their marriage was performed with the acceptance of their family and after the marriage, his sister gave birth to male child and that deceased used to come to their house and that she informed that 1st accused developed illicit intimacy with the 2nd accused and then they consoled deceased and sent her back to matrimonial house and that he came to know about the death of his deceased sister on 04.02.2022 through his wife, after coming to know the same, he and his brother went to the village, there, on enquiry with the villagers, they informed him that on 28.01.2022, when his sister was returning back from sweet shop, 1st accused picked her on his bike and took her to the cashew tope and burnt her and that he was examined by the Police and recorded his statement.
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 20 Sessions Case 10/2024
17.1. During his cross-examination by the learned Counsel for the 1st accused, P.W.9 stated that he has no personal knowledge about the incident and he came to know about the incident through P.W.3, hence, he can be construed as a hearsay evidence. Of course, merely on the ground of hearsay, the entire evidence of witness cannot be thrown aside.
17.2. During his cross-examination by the learned Counsel for the 2nd accused, P.W.9 stated that his family did not attend the marriage of the 1st accused and the deceased. According to him, deceased came to their house for twice or thrice and informed about the illicit intimacy of the 1st accused with the 2nd accused prior to giving birth to child. This version of P.W.9 is different from the prosecution theory since according to the prosecution, both deceased and 1st accused lead happy marital life for four years and gave birth to male child during that period. If really, there is any illicit intimacy in between accused 1 and 2 even prior to the birth of the child, the disputes would have been arose even prior to the birth of the child but not after the birth of the child. Hence, merely relying on the evidence of P.W.9 regarding the illicit intimacy, in view of inconsistency, as stated supra, this Court is unable to accept the alleged illicit intimacy in between the accused 1 and 2, which is the sole reason for the 1st accused to kill the deceased and this Court has no hesitation to hold that the prosecution failed to prove the alleged illicit intimacy in between the accused 1 and 2 even through the evidence of P.W.9.
18.The prosecution examined the maternal aunt of the 2nd accused as P.W.10 who stated that she is having a scooty bearing registration No.AP 39 FU 3678 and that in the year 2022, the Police took away her vehicle stating that the Inspector of Police directed to bring her vehicle and she does not
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 21 Sessions Case 10/2024
remember the exact date, except that she did not state anything about the case, hence the learned Public Prosecutor declared her hostile and cross- examined her, but nothing worthwhile could be fetched in favour of prosecution theory, as such, the evidence of P.W.10 is of no avail to the case of prosecution.
19.The person from the 1st accused took petrol in a half-a-liter bottle was examined as P.W.11, who stated that he is a resident of Kothavalasa and he is working a Company and he knows 1st accused being the resident of his neighbouring village and that on 29.01.2022, the 1st accused approached him and asked her to give petrol as his vehicle was stopped due to lack of petrol and accordingly, he had given petrol in a half-a-liter plastic bottle/M.O.15 bottle and later he came to know in the evening that the 1st accused killed his wife.
19.1. During his cross-examination by the learned Counsel for the
Accused he stated that he took petrol from his vehicle AP 31 BB 5868 and gave to the 1st accused and his vehicle was not seized by the Police. He denied that he is deposing false at the instance of the Police.
20.The person who exhibited the CCTV footage was examined by the prosecution as P.W.12, who stated that he is working as a Constable in
I.T.Core Team and that on 16.03.2022, Inspector of Police called him and instructed him to show the CCTV footage to the Constable on that he showed the CCTV footage and he downloaded the same in the Compact Disc and handed over the same (Exs.P.3 and P.4).
20.1. During his cross-examination by the learned Counsel for the 1st accused, he stated that there is no written requisition from the Inspector of
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 22 Sessions Case 10/2024
Police, but he added that there is a requisition to the D.I.G. Technical service.
He further stated that he has not given the full footage of CCTV and that he downloaded the CCTV footage timing mentioned by the Inspector of Police and he downloaded the CCTV footage from 07:00 to 08:00 p.m., but denied that the CCTV footage was tampered. According to P.W.12, as per the directions of the higher Authorities, he downloaded the CCTV footage, but he has not filed any document to show that as per the directions of the higher
Authorities, he did so. Even though no copy of order is produced by P.W.12 with regard to the directions given to him to download the CCTV footage, still his evidence inspires confidence for the reason that whatever he did is only basing on either oral written directions of his Officials, hence, this Court felt that even though he was cross-examined by the learned Defence Counsel, nothing favourable material could be elicited for the accused.
21.The prosecution examined the son of the deceased and other 1st accused as P.W.13, and, the Court after putting basic questions to ascertain that whether he is able to give rational answers, since he is a minor, considered as a competent witness. He stated that he is staying with the 1st accused and his mother died while he was studying II standard and his aunt informed him that his mother died and P.W.10 took him to the Hospital for the purpose of his collection blood samples. During his cross-examination by the learned Counsel for the 1st accused he stated that during life time of his mother, his parents took him to out and there were no disputes in between them. No cross-examination was done by the learned Counsel for the 2nd accused to this witness.
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 23 Sessions Case 10/2024
22.The prosecution examined one of the inquest panchayatdars as
P.W.14, who stated that that he is a resident of Jodimeraka village and he knows the accused and deceased and the deceased died in the month of
January, 2022 and he came to know about the death of the deceased on 04.02.2022, immediately, he went to the scene of offence and as per the request of the Village Revenue Officer, he acted as mediator for inquest panchanama and hair and ash was collected in their presence and the deceased died of burnings and Ex.P.11/Inquest Panchanama 22.1. During his cross-examination by the learned Counsel for the 1st accused, he stated that on his own, he went to the scene of offence after he came to know about the death of the deceased and by that time, he reached the scene of offence, Village Revenue Officer, Sarpanch and Ward Members were also present there, he denied that he did not go to the scene of offence and deposing false. Except the suggestion, which is denied by P.W.14, the accused could not fetch and favourable material from the cross-examination of
P.W.14, hence the evidence of P.W.14 is trustworthy regarding his presence at the time of inquest and acting as one of the inquest panchayatdars.
23.One of the mediators for the CCTV footages was examined by the prosecution as P.W.15, who stated that he is working as Village Revenue
Officer, Ganisettypalem and that previously, he worked as Village Revenue
Officer, Uttaravalli village and that on 16.03.2022 as per the instructions of their Mandal Revenue Officer, he and L.W.25/Patnala Madhu went to
Kothavalasa Police Station at about 11:30 a.m. by that time P.W.3, ward members were present, the Inspector of Police requested to act as mediators for CCTV footages, then Inspector of Police informed that CCTV footages are
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 24 Sessions Case 10/2024
received from DIG office and first CCTV footage Dt.28.01.2022 between 07:00 and 08:00 p.m. shows a lady wearing white top and green pant going from
Vizag road to Vizianagaram road at Kothavalasa junction and she is holding white cover and 2nd CCTV footage also shows a lady is near Police control room and 3rd footage is at Girijala junction in that a lady going on scooty as a pillion rider and the lady is same in all the three CCTV footages and they identified the said lady as wife of the 1st accused and then CCTV footages were stored in C.Ds under Exs.P.3 and P.4 and one of the persons in computer room of Police Station drafted the Ex.P.12/mediators report, wherein, he signed.
23.1. During his cross-examination by the learned Counsel for the 1st accused, P.W.15 stated that there is no written requisition from the Mandal
Revenue Officer and by the time when he reached the Police Station, P.Ws.3 and 7 were also present. Though it could be elicited from P.W.15 that he does not know what conversation took place in between P.W.3 and Police, this
Court unable to find the same as serious lapse for prosecution for the reason even by the time when P.W.15 went to the Police Station, P.W.3 was present, and, he is not supposed to disclose the things that were happened in his absence. Even though he pleaded ignorance as regards the name of the person, who drafted Ex.P.12, there is no any strict rule that a person who signs any document must know the name of the Scribe and the person who signs on a document should know the contents but not the name of the scribe or author. Hence, the non-awareness of the name of the scribe of Ex.P.12 by
P.W.15 cannot be a ground to doubt the veracity in his testimony. Though
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 25 Sessions Case 10/2024
P.W.15 stated that no male person is found in the CCTV footages, basing on the same, the entire case of the prosecution cannot be brushed aside.
24.The prosecution examined the Deputy Civil Surgeon as P.W.16, who stated that he received requisition from the Inspector of Police and accordingly, he collected the blood samples from P.W.13 for DNA examination and handed over the same to the Inspector of Police. During his cross- examination by the learned Counsel for the 1st accused, he denied that he has not collected the blood samples from P.W.13 and he is deposing false at the instance of Police. Though he denied the said suggestion, but stated that he did not receive any written requisition. Of course, the mode of requisition as to whether it is oral or written, the fact remains for consideration is that
P.W.16 collected the blood samples from P.W.13. To that extent, the evidence of P.W.16 is believable since the 1st accused could not elicit anything in his favour.
25.The Assistant Director, R.F.S.L., who conducted bio-chemical examination was examined by the prosecution as P.W.17, who stated that she received requisition from Sub Divisional Police Officer, Visakhapatnam in
Cr.No.24/2022 of Kothavalasa Police Station and that on on 16.02.2022, she received sealed box through PC.572 accordingly, she conducted bio-Chemical and Immunological examination and she issued Ex.P.13/R.F.S.L report and as per her examination Human blood is detected on item No.1, Blood group of blood stains on item No.1 is of “A” and that the Blood is not detected on item
No.2 which is received as control for items No.1. During her cross- examination by the learned Counsel for the 1st Accused, she denied that she
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 26 Sessions Case 10/2024
did not conduct the examination as per the standards and she is deposing false at the instance of the Police.
26.The Tahsildar, who conducted the inquest over the dead body was examined by the Prosecution as P.W.18, who stated that he is working as
Tahsildar, Lakkavarapu Kota and previously, he worked as Tahsildar,
Kothavalasa and that on 04.02.2022, he received requisition from Station
House Officer, Kothavalasa to conduct Inquest over dead body of deceased at about 12:00 noon, he visited scene of offence, by the time he reached scene of offence, Inspector of Police and other Police personnel and some others were present there, the scene of offence is a cashew tope at the road leading to
Vizianagaram from Kothavalasa and he observed burnt ash and some bones resembling human body and that he also found metal bangles and metal
Mettelu and single patti and one piece of cloth of a wearing apparel of a woman and seven feet from there he also observed long hair M.O.7 and M.O.8 are hair. M.O.9 and M.O.10 are blood stain stones and that Mos.1 to 6 were also seized in his presence and he also examined blood relatives and he conducted Inquest in the presence of P.W.4 and 5, blood relatives of the deceased and Village Revenue Officers and that the mediators opined that the death due to setting fire, Ex.P.11 is Inquest Report and that he also enquired the last seen person and mentioned in Col.No.4 of Ex.P.11.
26.1. During his cross-examination by the learned Counsel for the 1st accused, he stated that there is no dead body present at the scene of offence, but he added that burnt ashes of body was there. According to him, by the time he reached the scene of offence, clues team was present. Even though
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 27 Sessions Case 10/2024
P.W.18 was cross-examined, nothing worthwhile could be elicited to disbelieve his testimony regarding the conducting of inquest.
27.The prosecution examined the Investigating Officer, who visited the scene of offence, observed the same and got photographed the same as
P.W.19, who stated that that he is working as Sub Inspector of Police, Special branch, Parvathipuram and that previously, he worked as Sub Inspector of
Police, Clues team, Vizianagaram and that on 04.02.2022, on oral instructions of Station House Officer, Kothavalasa, he visited scene of offence along with his team, he reached scene of offence at 10:00 a.m., his team observed that there is pit in a cashew tope and they found ashes and examined minutely ash and some bones resembling human body and that he also found metal bangles and metal Mettelu and single patti and one piece of cloth of a wearing apparel of a woman and seven feet from there and he also observed long hair and that he seized M.Os.1 to 10 and they also photographed and videographed the scene of offence and that Ex.P.14 is the list of material object seized by them at the time inspection of scene of offence and handed over same to Station
House Officer, Kothavalasa/ L.W.32.
27.1. During his cross-examination by the learned Counsel for the 1st accused, P.W19 denied that he has not received any oral instructions of
Station House Officer, Kothavalasa nor he visited scene of offence along with my team nor he observed that there is pit in a cashew tope nor found ashes and examined minutely ash and some bones resembling human body nor he also found metal bangles and metal Mettelu and single patti and one piece of cloth of a wearing apparel of a woman nor he observed long hair nor seized
M.Os.1 to 10 nor got photographed and videographed the scene of offence not
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 28 Sessions Case 10/2024
drafted Ex.P.14 nor handed over same to the Inspector of Police. Even though P.W.19 was put to much cross-examination by the learned Counsel for the 1st accused, nothing worthwhile could be elicited to discard his testimony with regard to visiting of scene of offence, observing the same and seizure of material objects etc., on the other hand, the evidence of P.W.19 inspires confidence regarding the complicity of the 1st accused. But, a perusal of overall evidence of P.W.19 he did not even a single word against the 2nd accused. Hence, as discussed supra, this Court could able to conclude that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the 2nd accused even through the evidence of P.W.19.
28.The prosecution examined the Investigating Officer, who did investigation and filed the charge sheet as P.W.20, who stated that he is working as Inspector of Police, Special Branch, Anakapalli and previously, he worked as Inspector of Police, Kothavalasa from 20.06.2021 to 15.07.2023 and that on 30.01.2022, the 1st accused came to Police Station and gave report basing on the same he registered case in Cr.No.24/2022 U/s women missing and issued Ex.P.15/F.I.R. and deputed to L.W.31/ASI, Kothavalasa for investigation and that on 04.02.2022 at 09:30 a.m., P.W.1 came to Police
Station gave report along with the 1st accused with statement basing on the same, he altered the section of law from women missing into 302, 201 of I.P.C and submitted Ex.P.16/altered FIR to the Court and all concerned and later he secured the mediators P.W.1, L.W.17/Adavi Naidu, the 1st accused lead them to scene of offence and showed the scene of offence and he examined the scene of offence with the help of clues team and prepared scene observation
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 29 Sessions Case 10/2024
report/Ex.P.8 and photographed and videographed the scene of offence and seized M.Os.1 to 10.
28.1. P.W.20 further stated that he examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and recorded their statements and he sent requisition to P.W.18 to conduct Inquest and
P.W.18 conducted Inquest and that on 04.02.2022 at 03:00 p.m., he arrested the 1st accused in the presence of mediators P.W.1, L.W.17/Adavi Naidu and recorded the confession statement of the 1st accused at Police Station and the 1st accused lead them to the his house at Jodumeraka village and there he/P.W.20 seized M.Os.13 to 16 and drafted mediators report/Ex.P.7 and the 1st accused was produced before the Court for Judicial remand and basing on confession of the 1st accused on 05.02.2022, on receipt of information, he secured the presence of P.W.1 and L.W.17/Adavi Naidu along with P.W.3 went to Gidijala junction, there they found the 2nd accused and on interrogation, she revealed her name and confession of commission of offence and after recording the confession statement of the 2nd accused in the presence of
P.W.1, L.W.17/Adavi Naidu, P.W.3 and after informing the grounds of arrest, they arrested the 2nd accused and produced before the Court.
28.2. P.W.20 further stated that on 06.02.2022, he secured P.W.6,
P.W.7, and 8 and recorded their statements and that on 07.02.2022, he secured the presence of Chebrolu Ramu, Urli Pothu Raju (L.Ws.9 and 10) and
P.W.8 and recorded their statements and that on 08.02.2022, he secured
P.W.9, L.W.13/Sarapinti Veerachari and recorded their statements and that on 09.02.2022, he secured P.Ws.10 and 11 and recorded their statements and later on, he filed a memo for recording the statements of witnesses and sent
M.O.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11 for F.S.L. Amaravathi and he also sent to M.O.9 to
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 30 Sessions Case 10/2024
R.F.S.L, Visakhapatnam and that P.W.16 collected blood samples of P.W.13 for
D.N.A test and Ex.P.17 is D.N.A report of P.W.13 and that on 16.03.2022, on her requisition technical team, Vijayawada to Station House Officer,
Kothavalasa sent three mails, on receipt of mails, he secured the presence of
P.W.3, P.W.15, L.W.24/Golla Gopi Nagaraju and identified and sent to F.S.L,
Amaravathi. Ex.P.18 is the certificate for CCTV footage/ Ex.P.12.
28.3. P.W.20 further stated that he secured the presence of mediators
P.W.3, P.W.7, P.W.15, L.W.24/Golla Gopi Naga Raju, L.W.25/Patnala Madhu and in their presence, he verified the CCTV footages, in the first footage at about 07:26 p.m. of 28.01.2022 and that he found one lady coming from
Visakhapatnam to Vizianagaram road wearing white top and green chunni, green pant with a white cover in her hand and that in the 2nd CCTV footage which was at Kothavalasa junction at unused Police sub-control room junction at about 07:30 p.m., the same lady was found walking from junction to
Vizianagaram road, and in the 3rd CCTV footage at Gidijala junction at about 07:34 p.m. the same lady was found coming from Gidijala junction to
Vizianagaram, and he found one male person taking the lady on his scooty bearing registration No.AP 39 FU 3678.
28.4. P.W.20 further stated that the lady who was found in CCTV footages identified by P.W.3 and P.W.7 as the deceased and all the CCTV footages were saved in C.D/ Exs.P.3 and P.4 and in the presence of mediators
P.W.3, P.W.7, P.W.15, L.W.24/Naga Raju, and L.W.25/Madhu and C.Ds were forwarded for F.S.L Amaravathi for analysis and he examined P.W.12 recorded his statement and that on 20.03.2022, he examined P.W.16 and recorded his
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 31 Sessions Case 10/2024
statement and that after receipt of R.F.S.L and F.S.L, DNA and final opinion reports and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.
28.5. During his cross-examination by the learned Counsel for the 1st accused, he has not filed the missing complaint given by the 1st accused in this
Court, but the same cannot be considered as a serious lapse for the prosecution for the reason the said report by the 1st accused seems to be escape from his liability and hence even if there is any such report, the same has no much importance. P.W.20 categorically stated that there are no eyewitnesses in this case, but he added that this case depends on the ‘last seen’ theory. He stated that he did not examine the parents of the deceased,
Owner of the sweet shop and the so called persons with the name Demudu and Venkat, but this Court did not find any fault on the part of the
Investigating Officer in non-examining the parents of the deceased and the above persons in view of the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 4 before whom the 1st accused confessed his guilt and P.W.4 who had seen the 1st accused and the deceased lastly.
28.6. P.W.20 stated that he did not seize any Call Date Record. This part of omission on the part of the Investigating Officer disproves the contention of the prosecution that only because of illicit intimacy of the 1st accused with the 2nd accused, he eliminated the deceased at her instance. If really, the 2nd accused instigated the 1st accused or both of them conspired, definitely, the prosecution would have seized the call data record to prove the alleged conspiracy in between them or provocation by the 2nd accused to the 1st accused to remove the deceased from their way. However, the admission of
P.W.20 with regard to non-seizure of finger prints nor blood samples cannot be
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 32 Sessions Case 10/2024
said to be fatal to the case of prosecution for the reason that even by the time when the death of the deceased came to the light, there remained only ash of her. In such circumstances, the seizure or blood samples or finger prints is not possible.
28.7. P.W.20 though admitted that he obtained signature of the accused but did not note the date on the confession statement and mediators report. In view of the consistent and convincing evidence of P.W.1 with regard to the confession of the accused with regard to his complicity before P.W.1, the mere non-noting of the date underneath the signature of the 1st accused does not take away the case of prosecution. It might be true that Ex.P.3 and 4 do not show the deceased was getting on and getting down from the bike, but in view of the consistent evidence of P.W.4 as regards to going of deceased with the 1st accused, mere non-visibility of her in Exs.P.3 and P.4 does not cut the prosecution in its entirety. Furthermore, except suggesting by the learned
Counsel for the 1st accused to P.W.20 that Exs.P.3 and P.4 are fabricated, the accused did not make any attempt to get them examined by the Expert if really he felt that they were tampered or fabricated. Hence, this Court is of firm view that when the prosecution could able to prove Exs.P.3 and P.4, it is
for the accused to disprove the same, but he failed to do so, thereby this Court
is unable to convince with argument of the learned Counsel for the 1st accused in this dimension.
28.8. Even though P.W.20 admitted in his cross-examination that he did not mention the make colour of M.O.13/Bike, this Court did not find any seriousness in the said omission since the going of deceased on the bike was well-established by the prosecution through the evidence of P.W.4. P.W.20
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 33 Sessions Case 10/2024
further admitted that there was a prior complaint with regard to the disputes in between the 1st accused and the deceased. This part of admission goes in adverse to the case of the prosecution since even from suggestion, the 1st accused himself exposed the differences in between him and the deceased, which, in normal circumstances, drives even a common lane to raise a suspicion against the 1st accused to kill his wife.
28.9. P.W.20 admitted though admitted that he did not file the photographs of scene of offence, but asserted that he filed the Compact Disc (CD). This Court did not find any lacuna on the part of the prosecution in not filing the photographs when the CD to that extent is filed, further, it is also not the case of the 1st accused that the contents in the said Compact Disc did not show the place of offence, moreover, he made it clear that by the time, when he reached the place of offence, the Clues Team took the videographed the scene of offence. According to P.W.20, there are two scenes of offences and hence the burnt material was secured from the two places. P.W.20 admitted that the clues team did not mention the length of the hair and size of bangles in the report. May be said fact is true, but it does not alone sufficient to destroy the case of prosecution for the reason the accused failed to place any contra material that the said piece of hair and bangles do not pertain to the deceased.
28.10. Even though it could be elicited from P.W.20 that there is no mention in Exs.P.7 and P.12 as to who drafted the same. But, as discussed in preceding paragraphs, mere non mentioning the name of the author or scribe cannot be a sole ground to disbelieve these couple of documents since the contents prevail over the description of the Author, since the accused failed to
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 34 Sessions Case 10/2024
place any convincing material before the Court to show that the contents of these two documents are not correct. Thus, even though P.W.20 was put to a lengthy cross-examination by the learned Counsel for the 1st accused, nothing worthwhile could be eliciting fetching the case of the 1st accused, therefore, this Court has no hesitation to hold that through the evidence of P.W.20, the prosecution could able to prove the complicity of the 1st accused in commission of the offence.
28.11. During his cross-examination by the learned Counsel for the 2nd accused, P.W.20 admitted that in Ex.P.2, the name of the 2nd accused is inserted in between the gaps, this part of admission clearly emphasizes the innocence of the 2nd accused so also her inclusion in this case. Hence, basing on this admission of P.W.20 apart from the above discussion in preceding paragraphs as regards the role of the 2nd accused, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the 2nd accused is not at all responsible for the death of the deceased and it can be safely concluded that even through the evidence of
P.W.20, the prosecution failed to prove anything against the 2nd accused in the present crime.
29.The prosecution examined the learned Magistrate, who recorded 164, Cr.P.C. statements of witnesses as P.W.21, who stated that she is working as Junior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem and previously, she worked as Judicial
Magistrate of I Class, Kothavalasa from July, 2022 to April, 2023 and that the
Inspector of Police, Kothavalasa filed a memo for recording 164, Cr.P.C.
statements of P.Ws.3 to 8 and L.W.7/Jodu Narasimhulu, accordingly, she recorded the statements of P.Ws 3 to 8 and L.W.7/Jodu Narasimhulu. She further stated that P.W.3 stated before her that 1st accused is her relative’s son
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 35 Sessions Case 10/2024
and his wife Laxmi belongs to Therlam mandal and they performed your marriage eight years ago at Simhachalam when both of them loved each other and lived happily for three years and were blessed with a son/Yeswanth who is aged about 07 years, thereafter, 1st accused got acquaintance with the 2nd accused and thereafter 1st accused did not look after his wife and son and you used to demand her to give divorce and whenever she refused, the 1st accused used to beat her and the matter was placed in Police Station, but, there is no change and that on 29th January between 09:00 a.m and 10:00 a.m. the wife of the 1st accused was found missing and that on 30th January, complaint was given to police wherein 1st accused also signed and that she/P.W.3 got a doubt against the 1st accused and she told the same to Inspector of Police, after three days, the 1st accused confessed before P.W.1 that he took Laxmi to a cashew nut garden which is in Pedagoppu, beat her with a big stone and set her, fire by poring petrol 29.1. P.W.21 further stated that P.W.4 stated before her that the 1st accused loved Laxmi who belongs to Therlam mandal and they performed their marriage they had a boy and after the birth of their boy, they lived happily for few days, the 1st accused got acquaintance with Mounika/Accused
No.2 of you and demanded Laxmi to give divorce, when she refused the 1st accused used to harassed her by not providing food and when the matter was placed before the elders they also told the 1st accused to look after his wife and son and that when the 1st accused was taking Laxmi on a bike and later he/P.W.4 came to know that the Laxmi was found missing and he also came to know that a case was registered and he told to P.W.3 that day before the previous night, he saw the 1st accused took Laxmi on a bike and in the
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 36 Sessions Case 10/2024
meanwhile, the 1st accused also confessed before P.W.1 that he committed murder, by pouring petrol and later Police arrested him.
29.2. P.W.21 further stated that P.W.5 stated before her that 1st accused is his nearest relative, he was married 8 years ago 1st accused and his wife happily for few days, later, he got acquaintance with Mounika/Accused
No.2 of you and ever since, there were disputes between 1st accused and his wife and one day Accused No.2 went to house of the 1st accused and told that she was three month pregnant and that Laxmi refused for the same and the elders convinced them and send them, but no change and that the 1st accused tried to get rid of Laxmi and that he/P.W.5 found when the 1st accused took
Laxmi on 28th and that he got a doubt that why he was taking her, since they had no talking terms and later Laxmi was found missing and everyone got doubt on the 1st accused and later the 1st accused confessed before P.W.1 that he committed murder and burnt the body.
29.3. P.W.21 further stated that P.W.6 stated before her that on 28.01.2022, Laxmi was found missing and they thought she was somewhere and later on 31st, Mounika/Accused No.2 came to him and asked a doubt that what will be the punishment if someone committed murder and then he told that to his knowledge, it might be eight years and that she again asked him whether it is possible to come out, by paying amount, on that, he stated that it is possible if the offences are petty offences and then, she told that she called him to ask the said doubt and later, he/P.W.6 came to know that Laxmi died and the 1st accused murdered her.
29.4. P.W.21 further stated that that P.W.7 stated before her that the marriage 1st accused was performed with Laxmi about eight years back and
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 37 Sessions Case 10/2024
both of them lived happily for some and blessed with a son and after the birth of their son, the 1st accused told that he would marry Mounika/Accused No.2 and the 1st accused did not want Laxmi and also asked Laxmi to give divorce and when she refused, the 1st accused made allegations against her and that 10 days prior to her death, Laxmi came to her/P.W.7 with a curry and cried and she stated the 1st accused was following her up to her shop and she got a doubt on him and that on the night of 28th at about 07:00 p.m., the 1st accused took Laxmi from her shop on his bike and on 30th, the 1st accused came to her and told that Laxmi went away with a person, on that, she asked the 1st accused how she could go, by leaving her son and searched for her on surrounding places and after two hours, the 1st accused again came and told that Laxmi was in Sujatha Nagar and she went there on a bike of a person and after they gave complaint, the Police came and they took the 1st accused to Sujatha Nagar to enquiry, prior to that the 1st accused told the persons at
Sujatha Nagar to say lies to police, but, they recorded his conversation and sent the same to the president Ramulamma through Whatsapp and that the
President made her to listen the said conversation and that the 1st accused tried to say lies likewise and that the 2nd accused asked Rajesh what will be the punishment if someone committed murder, said Rajesh is her brother-in- law and he informed the same to her and P.W.3 and on that, they got suspicion and the 2nd accused demanded the 1st Accused through phone to marry her and same was informed to her by the 1st Accused and even though, she tried to convince him, but, he did not listen and that the 1st Accused committed murder on 28th night, by taking Laxmi to Pedda Goppu and he confessed the same before P.W.1.
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 38 Sessions Case 10/2024
29.5. P.W.21 further stated that P.W.8 stated before her that on 02.02.2022 her elder brother Naga Raju came to her house and asked her to tell that Laxmi came to her house along with a boy and also told that the
Laxmi was found missing and his villagers would she complaint against him and then she asked him how she could say when Laxmi did not come to her house and asked 1st Accused to call her husband, for which, the 1st Accused called her (P.W.8) husband through phone and also asked him to say that
Laxmi came to their house for which, her husband also asked the 1st Accused how could they say and he husband recorded the conversation and sent the same to P.W.3 and that two to three months prior to that day, Laxmi came to her house and she cried and told her that the 1st accused demanded her to give divorce and that after Laxmi went away, the 1st accused called her on suspicion and asked her whether Laxmi came to her house, on that, she scolded him, on that he stopped to talk to her and the 1st accused had illicit intimacy with another girl/Accused No.2 and that on 04.02.2022 she came to through P.W.3 that the Laxmi was died and she also came to know that the 1st accused murdered her. Exs.P.19 to P.24 are the 164, Cr.P.C. Statements
PW.3 to P.W.8.
29.6. During her cross-examination by the learned Counsel for the accused, she denied that the witnesses did not give statement before her voluntarily, except that nothing could be elicited from her cross-examination in support of the accused.
30.Thus, from the above evidence, when the prosecution could prove that the death of the deceased is a homicidal death, it has to be seen that how far the prosecution could able to establish that that the accused are
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 39 Sessions Case 10/2024
responsible for the death of the deceased. It was already discussed in the preceding paragraphs that the 2nd accused has no role in the crime and she is not responsible for the death of the deceased.
31.Admittedly, there is no direct witness to the offence and the entire case of prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence, where, the burden is heavily on the prosecution to establish the links. In the case on hand, admittedly, the prosecution did not examine the parents of the deceased, but examined the brother of the deceased, who clearly stated about the disputes in between the 1st accused and the deceased. The other witnesses examined by the prosecution also stated that the deceased used to report to them that the 1st accused was harassing her. Further, even from the evidence of P.W.20, it is clear that the deceased lodged a report against the 1st accused for harassing her. Thus, it is clear that there is strain relationship in between the 1st accused and the deceased, which amply establishes the ‘motive’ on the part of the 1st accused to get rid of the deceased.
31.Now, it has to be seen how far the prosecution could able to prove that the 1st accused killed the deceased. At the first instance, the 1st accused went to P.W.1 and made Extra Judicial Confession before him and P.W.1 along with his report surrendered the 1st accused before the Police Officials. As per the report of P.W.1, after making confession before him, the 1st accused took
P.W.1 to the scene of offence and showed the place where he burnt the deceased. Later, after surrendering the 1st accused before the Police, the 1st accused lead the Police and P.W.1 to the scene of offence, which clearly shows that the scene of offence is in exclusive knowledge of the accused, hence, it can
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 40 Sessions Case 10/2024
be clearly said that the first chain of circumstances was clearly established by the prosecution.
31.1. In this regard, the prosecution heavily relied on the evidence of
P.W.4, who stated that “… while I was at Kothavalasa car stand on road, leading to Vizianagaram, then A.1 came there on his Scooty and deceased came there and both went on scooty towards Vizianagaram”. This version of P.W.4 shows that the deceased lastly went along with the 1st accused, as such, the 1st accused is alone responsible to answer as to what happened to the deceased.
The learned Public Prosecutor while drawing the attention of this Court to ‘last seen theory’ submitted that the entire evidence of prosecution witnesses clearly shows that the 1st accused had disputes with the 1st accused and intended to remove her and thus he hatched up a plan to kill her and in execution of the same, he made the deceased to believe him and took her to the isolated place and killed her. In support of her contentions, the learned
Public Prosecutor relied on a judgment reported in State of Andhra
Pradesh Vs. Patchimala Vigneswarudu @ Viganna 1, wherein, it was observed that:
“(i) Admittedly, the deceased was the wife of the accused and they had strained relations.
(ii) …
(iii) …
(iv) The deceased and accused were last seen in the mid night (intervening night of 5.8.2001 and 6.8.2001) going together from cinema hall after night show, towards village Ayinavilli.
18. In our opinion, above chain of circumstances is complete and leads only to the conclusion that it was the accused/respondent and he alone, who committed the murder of the deceased.” 1 Criminal Appeal NO.436 of 2008, dt.06.01.2016 of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 41 Sessions Case 10/2024
The above judgment clearly shows that the accused and deceased were jointly last seen. The ratio in the above judgment aptly applied to the case on hand since, in the instant case, the 1st accused himself took P.W.1 to the scene of offence at the first instance and showed the same and the same is corroborated with his Extra Judicial Confession. Moreover, as per the evidence of P.W.4 when he was at Kothavalasa car stand, the 1st accused came there on his scooty and deceased also came there and both of them went on scooty towards Vizianagaram and thus, both the 1st accused and deceased were lastly seen by P.W.4 and as per the evidence of P.W.7, she and other villagers have seen the 1st accused and deceased in the CCTV footages and identified them-+, which amply proves that the accused took the deceased in the evening time and thereafter she was found missing and hence in view of the ratio laid down in the above case law, this Court has no hesitation to arrive at conclusion that the 1st accused alone committed the murder of the deceased and the prosecution could able to establish the chain of circumstances.
32.While cross-examining the Investigating Officers, the learned
Defence Counsels pointed out certain discrepancies. For which, the learned
Public Prosecutor submitted that even assuming for a while that there is discrepancy with regard to non-mentioning the names of the authors and non- noting of dates underneath the signatures, it does not cut the root of the prosecution case. In this context, it is apt to refer a judgment in Rajesh
Yadav and another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 2 wherein it was observed that:
2 Crl.Appeal 339, 340 of 2014, dt.04.02.2022 of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 42 Sessions Case 10/2024
“It is settled proposition of Law that even if there are some omissions, contradictions and discrepancies, the entire evidence cannot be disregarded. After exercising care and caution and sifting through the evidence to separate truth from untruth, exaggeration and improvements, the Court comes to a conclusion as to whether the residuary evidence is sufficient to convict the accused. Thus, undue importance should not be attached to omissions, contradictions and discrepancies, which do not go to the heart of the matter and shake the basic version of the prosecution’s witnesses. ”
Thus, in view of the ratio laid down in the above case even though there are certain discrepancies are there in the case of prosecution, in view of the other consistent and corroborative evidence available on record, this Court holds that those discrepancies are trivial in nature and they do not shake the case of prosecution from its root.
33.Now, coming to the role of the 2nd accused, the prosecution witnesses i.e. P.Ws.3 to 5 and 7 though asserted that the 2nd accused is behind the crime since both the accused are having illicit intimacy, but in their 161,
Cr.P.C. statements, which are marked as Exs.D.1 to D.4, they have stated differently, which disproves the contention of the prosecution that the 2nd accused connived in the offence and hence this Court is of considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove guilt of the 2nd accused.
34.As seen from the material, the accused were charged for the offence under Section 201 of IPC, but as seen from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, this Court did not find any sufficient material for the reason that the entire case of the prosecution rests on circumstances evidence and there is no ocular witness for the offence and also to say that the accused caused disappearance of evidence or giving false information to screen the offender, moreover, the 1st accused himself informed the commission of offence to P.W.1 and took him to the place of offence. Assuming for a while that the 1st accused
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 43 Sessions Case 10/2024
had such an ill-motive, he would have mislead P.W.1 and would have taken him to different place, but not to the exact crime scene. Thus, this Court is of firm view that the accused had no intention to cause disappearance, as such, the accused are not liable for the charge under Section 201 of IPC.
35.During arguments, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the because of the acts of the 1st accused, the son of the deceased lost the affection of his mother and became victim by the acts of the accused and hence they are entitled for victim compensation and relied on judgment reported in Shaik Ahamad Basha Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 3 wherein it was observed that:
“Section 357-A of Cr.P.C. was introduced by Act 5 of 2009 with the object of enabling the Court to direct the State to pay compensation to the victim where the compensation under Sections 357, Cr.P.C. is not adequate... ”
The learned Public Prosecutor also referred to copy of the Government Order of Andhra Pradesh State in G.O.Ms.No.43, Dt.15.04.2015. A perusal of the said G.O, at para No.7, procedure for grant of compensation is mentioned, under which, it is mentioned that “whenever a recommendation is made by the Court or on an application by any victim or his/her dependent under Sub
Section (2) of Section 357-A of the Act to the District Legal Services
Authority, the District Legal Services Authority shall examine the case and verify the contents of the claim with regard to the loss or injury caused to the victim arising out of the reported criminal activity and the District Legal
Services Authority, Vizianagaram may call for any other relevant information necessary in order to determine genuineness of the claims. After verifying the claim and on enquiry, shall award compensation, within two months, in 3 Criminal Appeal 930/2010 of Andhra High Court, dt.14.03.2016
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 44 Sessions Case 10/2024
accordance with the provisions of the Scheme. Considering the submissions of the learned Public Prosecutor so also in view of the ratio in Shaik Ahamad
Basha case (supra) and the G.O.Ms.No.43, Dt.15.04.2015, even though the accused was not found to be the guilt of the offence, but in view of admitted fact of death of deceased, which is a great peril to P.W.13/Yaswanth, this
Court is inclined to order for victim compensation to him. Even though the prosecution could not establish the guilt of the accused as discussed supra, but it does not a bar to award to Victim Compensation as enumerated in
Section 357-A of Cr.P.C., Accordingly, this point is answered. Accordingly, this point is answered.
32.In the result, the 1st accused is found not guilty for the charge under Section 201 of IPC and accordingly he is acquitted for the said charge, however, the 1st accused is found guilty for the charge under Section 302 of
IPC and accordingly he is convicted under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C. for the said charge. Whereas, the 2nd accused is found not guilty for the charges under Section 302 and 201 of IPC and accordingly, she is acquitted under
Section 235(1) for the said charges. The bail bonds of the 2nd accused, if any, shall stand canceled. The 2nd accused is directed to execute bond for her due appearance before the Hon’ble High Court in the event of appeal by the
Prosecution.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this 03 rd day of April, 2024.
Sd/- B.Sai Kalyan Chakravathi
Sessions Judge,
Vizianagaram 03.04.2025 (At bench):
The 1st accused is questioned with regard to quantum of sentence, he pleaded mercy. Hence, taking into consideration the gravity of offence and
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 45 Sessions Case 10/2024
nature of crime, the 1st accused is sentenced to imprisonment for life and also to pay fine of ₹.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only), in default of payment of fine, to suffer Simple Imprisonment for one month for the charge under
Section 302 of IPC. The remand period of the accused, if any, shall be given set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.,
M.O.13/Bike shall be returned subject to production of necessary documents and M.Os.1 to 12 and 14 to 16 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.
The 1st Accused is appraised of his right to appeal before the Hon’ble
High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi and free legal aid.
The son of the deceased i.e. P.W.13/Jodu Yaswanth, who is the victim, is at liberty to file an appropriate application before the District Legal
Services Authority, Vizianagaram, for grant of victim compensation under
Andhra Pradesh Victim Compensation Scheme, 2015 under Section 357-A of
Cr.P.C.,
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 03 rd day of April, 2024
Sd/- B.Sai Kalyan Chakravathi
Sessions Judge,
Vizianagaram.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For Prosecution: For Defence: P.W.1:Golla Venkata Raja Ravindra P.W.2:Pogasati Ganesh P.W.3:Jodu Ramulamma P.W.4:Chebrolu Siva P.W.5:Jodi Mutyala Rao P.W.6:Geethala Rajesh P.W.7:Geethala Devi P.W.8:Yesalapau Rani P.W.9:Sarapinti Eswara Rao
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 46 Sessions Case 10/2024
P.W.10:Bobbadi LakshmiNone P.W.11:Togara Sunitha P.W.12:G.Jagadeswara Rao, IT Core Team P.W.13:Jodu Yeswanth P.W.14:Chebrolu Mahesh P.W.15:Patnala Madhu, V.R.O., P.W.16:Dr.V.Koteswara Rao, Deputy Civil Surgeon. P.W.17::K.Geetha Madhuri, Assistant Director P.W.18::D.M.G.N.Prasada Rao, Tahsildar P.W.19::S.V.R.Raju, Inspector of Police P.W.20::S.Bala Surya Rao, Inspector of Police P.W.21: :S.Surya Kiran Sri, Junior Civil
Judge
Exhibits Marked For Prosecution: Ex.P.1:Report given by P.W.1 Ex.P.2:Extra judicial confession Ex.P.3:Compact Disc Ex.P.4:Compact Disc Ex.P.5:Relevant portion in confession statement Ex.P.6:Relevant portion in confession statement Ex.P.7:Mediators’ report Ex.P.8:Scene observation report Ex.P.9:161, Cr.P.C.Statement of P.W.6 Ex.P.10161, Cr.P.C.Statement of P.W.10 Ex.P.11Inquest panchanama Ex.P.12Mediators’ report
Ex.P.13R.F.S.L.Report Ex.P.14Letter Ex.P.15F.I.R. Ex.P.16Altered FIR Ex.P.17:D.N.A Report Ex.P.18Certificate for CCTV footage. Ex.P.19161, Cr.P.C.Statement of P.W.3 Ex.P.20161, Cr.P.C.Statement of P.W.4 Ex.P.21161, Cr.P.C.Statement of P.W.5 Ex.P.22161, Cr.P.C.Statement of P.W.6 Ex.P.23161, Cr.P.C.Statement of P.W.7 Ex.P.24161, Cr.P.C.Statement of P.W.8
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 47 Sessions Case 10/2024
For Accused:
Ex.D.1:Relevant portion in 161, Cr.P.C.Statement of P.W.3 Ex.D.2:Relevant portion in 161, Cr.P.C.Statement of P.W.4 Ex.D.3:Relevant portion in 161, Cr.P.C.Statement of P.W.5 Ex.D.4:Relevant portion in 161, Cr.P.C.Statement of P.W.7
Material Objects Marked
M.O.1: Bones pieces M.O.2: Metal Bangles M.O.3: Kalla Mattelu M.O.4: Burnt Kallu pattilu M.O.5: Ash at first scene of offence M.O.6: Half-burnt green cloth piece M.O.7: Half burnt hair M.O.8: Hair M.O.9: Three stone M.O.10: Small stones (kankara raallu) M.O.11: Ash packet M.O.12: Kankara matti M.O.13: Bike M.O.14: Pipe M.O.15: Bottle M.O.16: Match Box
Sd/- B.Sai Kalyan Chakravathi
Sessions Judge,
Vizianagaram
Copy to the Registrar (Judicial), Hon’ble High Court of A.P. (By way of C.D.) Copy to the Superintendent of Police, Vizianagaram and Director of Prosecution (through Public Prosecutor, Sessions Court, Vizianagaram) Copy to the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Vizianagarammaternal
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 48 Sessions Case 10/2024
IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS JUDGE, VIZIANAGARAM
Present: Sri B.Sai Kalyan Chakravarthi,
Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram
Thursday, the 03rd day of April, 2025
Sessions Case No.10/2024
1 Nameof:Staterepresented bytheInspector of Police, Kothavalasa Police Station Complainant 2 Name of the Accused1. Jodu Naga Raju, S/o late Demudu, aged 33 years, ST Mannemdora by caste, Jodumeraka village, Appannadorapalem Panchayat, Kothavalasa Mandal.
2 Eeti Mounika, D/o late Beemraju, 23 years, ST Mannemdora by caste, rest ditto.
3Date of offence:28.01.2022
4.Place of offence:at Peda Goppu in Survey No.120 of Baligattam revenue village outskirts of Ardhannapalem village of Kothavalasa Mandal in an isolated area covered with deep bushes 5Date of complaint:04.02.2022 6Date of apprehension:24.04.2024 7Whether the Accused is in :On bail jail or bail 8Date of commencement of :16.07.2024 trial 9Date of close of trial:07.02.2025
10.Date of Sentence of :03.04.2025 Judgment
EXPLANATION FOR DELAY IN SESSIONS COURT:- After receipt of the record from Committal Court, the case was numbered as Sessions Case 08/2024. On 04.07.2024 charge framed and trial schedule was fixed and the Trial was started on 23.10.2024. P.Ws.1 to 21 were examined and Ex.P.1 to P.24 and Exs.D.1 to D.4 were marked and M.Os.1 to 16 were exhibited. The Accused is examined U/s 313 Cr.P.C on 29.11.2024 and 20.02.2025. Arguments heard finally on 25.03.2025. Judgment was pronounced on 03.04.2025, thus, there is no delay.
Sd/- B.Sai Kalyan Chakravathi i
Sessions Judge,
Vizianagaram
IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS JUDGE, VIZIANAGARAM
Present: Sri B.Sai Kalyan Chakravarthi,
Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram
Thursday, the 03rd day of April, 2025
Sessions Case No.10/2024
1 Nameof: StaterepresentedbytheInspector of ComplainantPolice, Kothavalasa Police Station 2 Name of the Accused1. Jodu Naga Raju, S/o late Demudu, aged 33 years, ST Mannemdora by caste, Jodumeraka village,AppannadorapalemPanchayat, Kothavalasa Mandal. 2 Eeti Mounika, D/o late Beemraju, 23 years, ST Mannemdora by caste, rest ditto.
:302 of IPC: Punishment for murder 3 Charges 201 of IPC:Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender.
4 Plea of Accused: Not Guilty 5 Finding of the Judge1st accused is guilty for the charge U/s.302 of IPC and both accused are found not guilty for charge U/s.201 of IPC. 2nd Accused is not guilty of charge U/s.302 of IPC. : In the result, 1st accused is found not
6. Sentence or Order guilty for the charge under Section 201 of IPC and accordingly he is acquitted for the said charge, however, the 1st accused is found guilty for the charge under Section 302 of IPC and accordingly he is convicted under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C. for the said charge. Whereas, the 2nd accused is found not guilty for the charges under Section 302 and 201 of IPC and accordingly, she is acquitted under Section 235(1) for the said charges. The bail bonds of the 2nd accused, if any, shall stand canceled. The 2nd accused is directed to execute bond for her due appearance before the Hon’ble High Court in the event of appeal by the Prosecution. the 1st accused is sentenced to imprisonment for life and also to pay fine of ₹.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only), in default of payment of fine, to suffer Simple Imprisonment for one month for the charge under Section 302 of IPC. The remand period of the accused, if any, shall be given set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C., 7 Prosecution conducted by: Public Prosecutor, Vizianagaram 8 Defence conducted: Sri T h a t a R a j u Advocate for the 1st Accused
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 2 Sessions Case 10/2024
Sri Ch.Praveen Raju, Advocate for the 2nd Accused
J U D G M E N T
01. The Inspector of Police of Kothavalasa Police Station laid charge sheet against the Accused alleging that on 28.01.2022 at Peda
Goppu in Survey No.120 of Baligattam revenue village outskirts of
Ardhannapalem village of Kothavalasa Mandal in an isolated area covered with deep bushes, the 1st accused committed murder of his wife/Jodu
Lakshmi (herein after referred as “deceased”), in Crime No.24/2022of
Kothavalasa Police Station under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC.
02.The brief case of the Prosecution is that the deceased is the legally wedded wife of the 1st accused and that on 30.01.2022, the 1st accused lodged a report with the Police stating that his wife/Jodu
Lakshmi went to Sairam Sweets shop for attending work on 28.01.2022 at about 08:30 a.m. but she did not return even late night, upon that he went to the shop and asked the Owner of the said shop, for which, the
Owner informed that after completion of work, she went away, then, he searched for his wife in all possible places, but could not trace, hence lodged the report with the Police for taking action and at the time of her missing, she wore green colour dress. Basing on the said report, S.Bala
Surya Rao/Inspector of Police (L.W.32) registered a case in
Cr.No.24/2022 as “woman missing” and entrusted further investigation to A.Rahiman, ASI (L.W.31).
2.1.On 04.02.2022, Galla Venkata Raju (L.W.1) went to
Kothavalasa Police Station along with the 1st accused and presented a
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 3 Sessions Case 10/2024
report along with Extra Judicial Confession Statement of 1st accused and surrendered him before the Police. The report of Venkata Raju is that on 04.02.2022 at about 07:00 hours, while he was at his residence/Kothavalasa, the 1st accused came to his house and stated that he married one Lakshmi about 08 years back and they were blessed with a male child, thereafter, he suspected her fidelity and thereby he intended to eliminate her and marry the 2nd accused and when he asked his wife for divorce, she refused, at last, he intended to kill her in order to marry the 2nd accused, and, accordingly, on 28.01.2022 night at about 07:30 p.m. he took away his wife from car stand of Kothavalasa on his scooty bearing registration No.AP 39 FU 3678 by making her to believe that they are going to Teertham at Gollapeta, and proceeded towards
Peda Goppu down by Survey No.120 of Baligattam revenue village of
Ardhannapalem village outskirts and took her to an isolated place in deep bushes and killed her by beating her with a stone on the back side of her head for 3 or 4 times indiscriminately after throwing her over the stones, then, he kept sticks and palmyrah leaves over her dead body and poured petrol and lit fire and then he went away to Gollapeta village and on the next day i.e. on 29.01.2022 morning while, he went to same place, he found that some skull was not burnt properly, upon that he took away the same with some distance and lit fire by pouring petrol, by which time, he heard sound of a motorcycle, on that, he afraid that his identity would be revealed, and fled away from there, later, he went to his village and informed the village elders that his wife was found missing and then, he lodged a missing complaint at Kothavalasa Police station on
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 4 Sessions Case 10/2024
30.01.2022. Thus, basing on the report of Venkata Raju, the Inspector of
Police (L.W.32) altered the FIR from “Woman missing” to Section 302 and 201 of IPC on 04.02.2022. During the course of investigation, the
Inspector of Police arrested the accused in the presence of mediators viz.,
Venkata Raju (L.W.1) and Gokada Adavi Naidu (L.W.17) since the accused voluntarily confessed the offence in their presence that he killed his wife with pre-plan and conspiracy of the 2nd accused. The
Investigating Officer examined the witnesses and recorded their statements and produced the 1st accused before the Court for judicial remand. As a part of investigation, the Investigating Officer visited the scene of offence, observed the same, prepared rough sketch, and, thereafter on credible information, he along with the above referred mediators went to Gidijala village and apprehended the 2nd accused and she also voluntarily confessed the offence and arrested her and produced her before the Court for judicial remand. K.Geetha Madhuri, Scientific
Officer, RFSL, Visakhapatnam (L.W.27) analyzed the blood samples and gave her report opining that in item Nos.1 and 2, human blood is detected with “A” group blood. The Mandal Executive Magistrate,
Kothavalasa (L.W.29) conducted inquest over the dead body, at the time of inquest, the 1st accused was also present, after inquest, forwarded the dead body for postmortem examination and after receipt of medical reports and after completion of investigation, he filed the charge sheet.
03.The learned Magistrate, took cognizance for the charges under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC videP.R.C.No.01/2023 committed the case to the Court of Sessions since the offence under Sections 302 IPC is
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 5 Sessions Case 10/2024
exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, duly furnishing the case papers to the Accused.
04.After appearance of the Accused before this Court, they were examined and charges under Sections 302 and 201 are framed against the accused and read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
05.During the trial, the prosecution in support of their case examined P.Ws 1 to 20, got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.24 and exhibited
M.Os.1 to 16.
06.After completion of the prosecution evidence, the Accused were examined under Sections 313 Cr.P.C., by putting the incriminating material in the evidence of prosecution witnesses against the Accused, for which, the Accused denied the same, and reported no defence evidence, but got marked Exs.D.1 to D.4.
07.Heard both sides.
08.Now, the points for determination are:
Whether the Prosecution could bring home the guilt of the accused for charges under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?
Point:
09.
Before adverting to the conclusion with regard to the point-in-
issue, it is apposite to refer to the oral and documentary evidence available onrecord In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined the Village Revenue Officer to whom the accused give extra judicial confession as P.W.1, who stated that he is working as V.R.O,
Relli village. On 04.02.2022 at about 07:00 a.m while he was at his home, the 1st accused came to his house and confessed the commission of offence and he
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 6 Sessions Case 10/2024
drafted extra judicial confession, wherein he/PW.1 and Accused No.1 signed and later on as per confession, Accused No.1 burnt the deceased in cashew tope of Baligattam village and he/P.W.1 asked Accused No.1 to show the place where he burnt the deceased, accordingly Accused No.1 took him to cashew tope of Baligattam village, there he/P.W.1 saw the burnt ash and bones from there, he/P.W.1 took Accused No.1 to Police Station and surrender before
Inspector of Police at about 09:30 a.m., he submitted Ex.P.2/extra judicial confession along with his Ex.P.1/report and he signed on both and he/P.W.1 informed same to our Tahsildar.
9.1.P.W.1 further stated that Accused No.1 took him/P.W.1, Gokada
Adavi Naidu/L.W. 17 and the Police to the scene of offence along with clues team, videographer and Accused No.1 explained the way how he committed the offence and shown them the place where Accused No.1 burnt the body and the Inspector of Police identified ashes at two places and at the first place, they observed ashes, 7 (Seven) bones, metal bangles, mattelu, kalla pattilu, and at the second place half burnt hair, normal hair, ashes and the second place is at a distance of 20 feet from the first place and that the Inspector of
Police also seized blood stained stones and that both the scene of offence were videographed and seized material object and drafted scene observation report and they signed on it.
9.2.P.W.1 further stated that that he identified Ex.P.3/videograph of the Ex.P.4/scene of offence and M.O.1 is bones pieces-7 and M.O.2 is two metal bangles and M.O.3 is “Kalu mattelu”, M.O.4 is burnt “kalu patti”,
M.O.5 is ash at first scene, M.O.6 is half burnt green cloth piece, M.O.7 is half burnt hair, M.O.8 is hair, M.O.9 is three stones, M.O.10 is small stones
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 7 Sessions Case 10/2024
(Kankara Rallu). M.O.11 is ash packet, M.O.12 is kankara matti, he also witness to the Inquest conducted by L.W.29/D.M.G.N.Prasada Rao at that time Inspector of Police, village elders and panchayatdars were also present and Inquest Report was drafted and the Panchayatdars opined that the deceased died due to setting ablaze and that on the same day at the request of
Police, he/P.W.1 went to Police Station and Inspector of Police requested her and L.W.17/Gokada Adavinaidu to act as mediators and in their presence.
9.3.P.W.1 further stated that Accused No.1 confessed the commission of offence and the Police drafted confession statement in their presence and
Accused No.1 further stated that Accused No.1 have kept the bike No.AP 39
FU 3678, pipe, bottle and match box used for commission of offence at his house and stated that Accused No.1 would show and Ex.P.5 is therelevant portion of confession statement and in pursuance confession, Accused No.1 lead them to his house at Jodumeraka and showed the bike, pipe, bottle and match box and Ex.P.6 is relevant portion of confession statement and Ex.P.7 is seizure report and that M.O.13 is bike No.AP 39 FU 3678 and that M.O.14 is pipe and M.O.15 is bottle and that M.O.16 is match box.
9.4. During his cross-examination by the learned Counsel for the 1st accused, P.W.1 admitted that he has not mentioned that at what time he went to scene of offence and how much time he spent at scene of offence. Even though he did not state the time particulars, but the same cannot be considered as a serious lapse since his role is regarding recording the extra judicial confession of the 1st accused and surrendering him to the Police.
P.W.1 stated that he did not collect the bones and ash, but he added that clues team has collected. He further stated that he has not videographed and
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 8 Sessions Case 10/2024
photographed the scene of offence but he added that clues team has videographed and photographed the scene of offence. Even though P.W.1 did not do the said things, he clearly stated that the Clues Team did those things.
Hence, this Court did not find any fault with P.W.1 in not doing with those things. P.W.1 admitted that M.Os.2 to 4 are usually available in market, may be the said fact is true, but in the absence of any contra material by the accused, this Court is unable to convince with the contention of the accused that they are planted or set up for this case. P.W.1 admitted that he visited the scene of offence at the first instance as the accused took him to the scene of offence later on informed to the police about the scene of offence and he also admitted that it is mentioned in Ex.P.8 that by the time he and accused and
Inspector of Police reached the scene of offence the clues team was already there and he added that by the time they reached scene of offence clues team also came to the scene of offence and he also admitted that fingerprints were not obtained by clues team on material objects. According to P.W.1, he drafted the mediators report/Ex.P.7. P.W.1 admitted that date is not mentioned beneath the signatures of the accused in Ex.P.8. Though the date is not mentioned underneath the signature, in view of the consistent evidence of P.W.1, this Court did not find that the non-mentioning the date is fatal to the case of prosecution since the entire episode took place two or three days after the death of the deceased.
9.5.During his cross-examination by the learned Counsel for the 2nd accused, he admitted in Ex.P.1 he mentioned that the 1st accused killed the deceased as there is illicit intimacy with one Demudu of
Bheemannadorapalem. Relying on this admission, the learned Counsel for
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 9 Sessions Case 10/2024
the 2nd accused submitted that there is no illegal intimacy in between the accused 1 and 2 at any time and that this accused is not at all responsible for the killing of deceased by the 1st accused and the 1st accused might have killed the deceased suspecting her fidelity and intimacy with a person by name
Demudu of Bheemannadorapalem village. This Court finds force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the 2nd accused since at the earliest point of time, P.W.1 mentioned the reason for killing of deceased by 1st accused for her intimacy with another person, but not because of any alleged intimacy in between the 1st and the 2nd accused. Hence, from this admission of P.W.1, this Court holds that the 2nd accused cannot be fastened with any liability in the offence.
10.The co-traveler of the deceased to whom the deceased used to report about the harassment caused by the 1st accused was examined by the prosecution as P.W.2,who stated that he is a private employee and that about 2 ½ years back, he used reside at Oppangi village and that he and the deceased used to travel by bus from their village to Rajam and that the deceased used to work in Bakery shop at Rajam, thereafter, the deceased called him and informed that she got married to a person by name
Nagaraju/Accused No.1 and thereafter 1st accused and deceased lived happily for some time and gave birth to one child by name Yeswanth and later the deceased informed that Accused No.1 developed illicit intimacy with the 2nd accused, and that the deceased informed him that Accused No.1 used to harass her and that about 2 ½ years back, he came to know that deceased died and Accused No.1 caused the death of the deceased and accused confessed the commission of offence before P.W.1 and that L.W.3/Jodu
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 10 Sessions Case 10/2024
Ramulamma performed the marriage of Accused No.1 with the deceased and after the marriage, the deceased used to work in bakery shop at Kothavalasa and that he/P.W.2 was examined by the Police and recorded his statement 10.1. During his cross-examination, P.W.2 stated that the deceased is his distant relative. The learned Counsel for the 1st accused argued that since in view of his relationship with the deceased, P.W.2 is speaking false. But, this Court is unable to convince with the said submission since there are catena of decisions which speak that mere relationship cannot be a ground to discard the evidence of a witness, unless the contra is proved or suspicious circumstances established by the Accused. He stated that he cannot say the names of the parents of the deceased. Being a relative of deceased, P.W.1 might have known the names of parents of deceased, however, even not disclosing the name of parents of the deceased cannot be a ground to doubt the veracity in his testimony since he categorically stated that he came to know about the harassment caused by the 1st accused to the deceased.
10.2. During his cross-examination by the learned Counsel for the 2nd accused, he stated that the deceased used to inform him about the illicit intimacy of the accused 1 and 2 over phone, but he cannot say the phone numbers. If really, P.W.2 is informed by the deceased about the intimacy in between the accused, he being a relative would have reacted and would have, at least, informed the same to any of his other relatives or at least, he would have questioned the 1st accused, but he did not so, furthermore, he could not also give any mobile number through which he was informed by deceased about the alleged intimacy in between the accused 1 and 2. Hence, without there being any convincing and cogent material, this Court is unable to accept
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 11 Sessions Case 10/2024
the evidence of P.W.2 with regard to the alleged intimacy in between the accused 1 and 2 and merely basing on the said assertion of P.W.2, this Court is not inclined to held the 2nd accused is the root cause for the offence committed by the 1st accused.
11.The person in whose presence the marriage of the 1st accused and deceased was performed was examined by the prosecution as P.W.3, who stated that she is a Surpanch of Appannadorapalem village and that the 1st accused is her relative and the deceased belongs to Therlam village and that the 1st accused and deceased came to him and informed that they loved each other on that she, L.W.7/Jodu Narasimhulu, L.W.9/Chebrolu Ramu and some elders took them to Simhachalam and performed the marriage of the 1st accused and deceased about 8 years back and both of them lived happily for four years and deceased gave birth to a child by name Yeswanth and that the house of the 1st accused is near to her house and that after four years of their marriage, and that 1st accused fell in love with the 2nd accused, who is also reside near to her/P.W3 house and that after four years of the marriage disputes started between 1st accused and deceased and that the deceased used to work in sweet shop at Kothavalasa and the 1st accused did not work and demanded divorce from the deceased as the 1st accused intended to marry the 2nd accused.
11.1. P.W.3 further stated that deceased came to her and informed her about the disputes between the 1st accused and deceased and that the deceased informed her that she is not willing to give divorce and the 1st accused started physical and mental harassment and later deceased gave complaint to Police and that deceased used to come to her/P.W.3 regularly and
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 12 Sessions Case 10/2024
informed her about her family affairs and that several times panchayat was held and they counseled the 1st accused but of no use and that the deceased did not come to house on 28.01.2022 and they made the 1st accused to give complaint on 02.02.2022 and they all searched for deceased and that Chebrolu
Siva/L.W.5, Jodi Mutyala Rao (L.Ws.4 and 5) informed her that they saw the 1st accused and deceased while they were going on a bike, in the evening hours of 28.01.2022 at Girijala junction and that the 1st Accused confessed the commission of offence before P.W.1 and that she was examined by the Police and she also gave her statement before Magistrate and she was present at the time of Inquest.
11.2During her cross-examination by the learned Counsel for the 1st accused, P.W.3 stated that she stated that about two months prior to the death of the deceased, she gave police report against the 1st accused and the
Police admonished the 1st accused. She stated that she was present when the 1st accused gave complaint regarding the missing of the deceased to the Police.
11.3. During her cross-examination by the learned Counsel for the 2nd accused, P.W.3, upon confrontation of her 161, Cr.P.C. statement, which is marked as Ex.D.1, wherein, it was mentioned that :
“సు�మారు� రెం�డు� సు�వత్స�రుము�ల నుం��డి నాగరాజు త్సనుం భారు� భీమునుం�దొరువలసు గ్రా� మానికి చెం�దినుం దేము�డు� తో అక్ర"ము సు�బం�ధం� పెట్టు�' కొని తిరిగి చు�నుం�ట్టు�- అనుం�మానుం� పెట్టు�' కొని ఇరు�వురు0 గొడువల� పడు�త్స��డేవారు�. దాని కారుణము�గ్రా ఇద్ద9రికీ మునుంసు;రు'<ల� వచ్చా>యి. ”
But,she denied the same and hence the contradiction though marked for the accused is of no avail. According to P.W.3 a panchayat was convened about four years back as regards the alleged illegal intimacy in between the accused 1 and 2, however, she made it clear that for the said panchayat the 2nd accused was not called. When the alleged panchayat is purported to be held to enquire
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 13 Sessions Case 10/2024
about the alleged intimacy in between the accused 1 and 2, the non-calling of 2nd accused, against whom a severe allegation is attributed, creates a doubt in the mind of the Court since P.W.3 did not make any venture even at least mention the names of the so called gentlemen mediators who held the so called panchayat. Hence, this Court is unable to place reliance on the version of P.W.3 with regard to holding of panchayat to discuss or enquire about the alleged illegal intimacy in between the accused 1 and 2, accordingly, this
Court is not inclined to attach any liability to the 2nd accused in the crime.
12.The prosecution also examined the person, in whose presence the marriage of 1st accused and deceased was performed and also to prove the harassment caused by the 1st accused to the deceased so also present at the time of inquest, as P.W.4, who stated that he is a resident of Jodimeraka village and he is running a cell point at Kothavalasa and he knows both the accused and the deceased and that the deceased belong to Therlam village.
P.W.3, L.W.7/Jodu Narasimhulu, L.W.9/Chebrolu Ramu and some elders took 1st accused and deceased to Simhachalam and performed their marriage about 8 years back and that 1st accused and the deceased lived happily for four years and deceased gave birth to a child by name Yeswanth and thereafter, 1st accused fell in love with the 2nd accused and that after four years of the marriage disputes started between 1st accused and deceased and that the deceased used to work in sweet shop at Kothavalasa and 1st accused did not work and demanded divorce from the deceased as 1st accused intended to marry the 2nd accused and he further stated that the 1st accused started physical and mental harassment and later deceased gave complaint to Police.
Several times panchayat was held and elders counseled 1st accused but of no
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 14 Sessions Case 10/2024
use and that on 29.01.2022, he came to know that the deceased was missing and he went to P.W.3 and informed her that while he was at Kothavalasa Car stand on road leading to Vizianagaram then 1st accused came there on his
M.O.13/Scooty and deceased came there and both went on scooty towards
Vizianagaram and subsequently Accused No.1 gave missing complaint to
Police and 1st accused confessed the commission of offence before P.W.1 and in in pursuance of confession 1st accused lead them to scene of offence and he was examined by the Police and he also gave his statement before Magistrate and he was present at the time of Inquest.
12.1. During his cross-examination by the learned Counsel for the 1st accused, P.W.4 stated that stated that he is a ward member since three years under the control of P.W.3 and also stated that he cannot say the name of sweet shop in which the deceased used to work. P.W.4 though unable to say the name of the sweet shop in which the deceased was working prior to her death cannot be a ground to discard his entire evidence. Except the suggestions, which are denied by the witness, the 1st accused could not fetch any material in his favour.
12.2. During his cross-examination by the learned Counsel for the 2nd accused, P.W.4 stated that he did not inform to parents of deceased about her marriage and death and according to him P.W.3 and elders performed the marriage of the 1st accused and deceased at Simhachalam, but he does not know the date of their marriage. His 161, Cr.P.C. statement is confronted to him, wherein it was mentioned as follows:
“సు�మారు� రెం�డు� సు�వత్స�రుము�ల నుం��డి నాగరాజు త్సనుం భారు� భీమునుం�దొరువలసు అనే వ�కిA తో అక్ర"ము సు�బం�ధం� పెట్టు�' కొని తిరిగి గ్రా� మానికి చెం�దినుం దేము�డు� అనుం�మానుం� పెట్టు�' కొని ఇరు�వురు0 గొడువల� పడు�త్స��డేవారు�. దాని చు�నుం�ట్టు�- కారుణము�గ్రా ఇద్ద9రికీ మునుంసు;రు'<ల� వచ్చి> మాట్టు-ము0ట్టు లేక్ర��డా ఒకే ఇ�టిలో
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 15 Sessions Case 10/2024
వేరేగ్రా ఉం�డేవారు�. వారు� త్సరు�చు� గొడువల� పడు�చు��డుడు� నేనుం�, సురు;�చ్ అముM/ రాము�లముM, గీత్సల దేవి, మురి కొ�త్స ము�దిమి లేని పోని అనుం�మానాల� పెట్టు�' కోవద్ద9ని నాగరాజునుం� ము�ద్దలిం�చ్చినాము�. ”
P.W.4 though admitted the said statement, which marked as Ex.D.2, it is no way helpful to the accused, since, the said statement of P.W.4 amply proves strain relation in between the 1st accused and the deceased and from the above statement, an adverse inference can be drawn regarding the ‘motive’ of the accused to get rid of her for the reason he is suspecting the character and fidelity of the deceased.
13.The person who witnessed the 1st accused took away the deceased lastly was examined by the prosecution as P.W.5, who stated that he is a resident of Jodimeraka village and he is an Auto Rickshaw driver and that he knows both the accused and the deceased and that the deceased belong to
Therlam village. P.W.3, L.W.7/Jodu Narasimhulu, L.W.9/Chebrolu Ramu and some elders took 1st Accused and deceased to Simhachalam and performed their marriage about 8 years back and both 1st Accused and the deceased lived happily for four years and deceased gave birth to a child by name
Yeswanth and that after four years of their marriage, 1st Accused fell in love with the 2nd accused and thereafter disputes started between 1st Accused and deceased and that deceased used to work in sweet shop at Kothavalasa and 1st
Accused did not work and demanded divorce from the deceased as he intended to marry the 2nd accused. P.W.5 further stated that 1st accused started physical and mental harassment, later deceased gave complaint to
Police and that several times panchayat was held and elders counseled the 1st accused, but of no use and that on 29.01.2022, he/P.W.5 came to know that the deceased was missing and he went to P.W.3 and informed her that on
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 16 Sessions Case 10/2024
28.01.2022 at about 07:30 p.m., while he was at Kirana shop, Girijala junction, then 1st accused came there on his Scooty and deceased came there and both went on scooty towards Vizianagaram and thereafter the 1st accused gave missing complaint to Police and that the 1st accused confessed the commission of offence before P.W.1 and in pursuance of confession, the 1st accused lead them to the scene of offence and he was examined by the Police and he also gave his statement before Magistrate and that he was present at the time of Inquest.
13.1. The entire cross-examination of P.W.5 is very similar to that of the cross-examination of P.W.4, hence, discussing again would be nothing but a futile exercise. However, it can be concluded that even though P.Ws.4 and 5 were cross-examined by the learned Counsel for the 1st accused nothing worthwhile could be elicited in favour of the 1st accused. Similarly, the evidence of P.Ws.5 and 6 is not at all sufficient to connect the 2nd accused with the offence committed by the 1st accused and this Court did not find any ground from the evidence of P.Ws.4 and 5 that the 2nd accused is the root cause for the death of the deceased. However, upon confronting his 161,
Cr.P.C. statement, P.W.5 and the same is marked as Ex.D.3, wherein it was mentioned that:
“నాగరాజు, నా వదినుం పై లేని పోనీ అనుం�మానాల� పెట్టు�' కొని నా అనుం�య్య� సు�బం�ధం� పెట్టు�' కొని భీమునుం�దొరుపాలెం� గ్రా� మానికి చెం�దినుం దేము�డు� అనుం� తిడు�త్స0 కొడు�త్స0 తిరు�గ��ద్దని ఆమెతో సు�మారు� రెం�డు� సు�వత్స�రుము�ల ఉం�ట్టు�నా�డు�, ఈ విషయ్యమై మా గ్రా� ము సురు;�చ్ జోడు� రాము�లముM, చేబ్రోa ల� శివ, గీత్సల దేవి మురికొ�త్స ము�ది ప�చ్చాయ్యతీ పెటి' మా అనుం�య్య� నాగరాజునుం� గటి'గ్రా తిటి'నారు�. ఈ క్ర"ము�లో మా అనుం�య్య� మా వదినుంతో మాట్టు ము�తి లేక్ర��డా ... ”
But, P.W.5 denied the said statement, however, a perusal of the said statement, it is clear that both the 1st accused and deceased have no cordial relations and the 1st accused used to scold her on the premise of ‘illicit
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 17 Sessions Case 10/2024
intimacy’, which also leads to draw an adverse inference against that the 1st accused inimical disposed of against the deceased and waiting for an opportunity to get rid off. Hence, though the accused sought to rely on
Ex.D.3, the same is no way helpful to him since, in Ex.D.3, it is clear that there are strained relations in between the accused and the deceased.
14.The prosecution examined one of the residents of
Ardhannapalem village as P.W.6, who stated that the 1st accused and deceased lived happily for four years and deceased gave birth to a son by name
Yeswanth. He pleaded ignorance regarding the reasons for the quarrels in between the 1st accused and the deceased. He also stated that he does not know anything about the case. Hence, the learned Public Prosecutor declared the witness hostile and cross-examined him, but during his cross- examination, nothing worthwhile could be elicited in favour of the prosecution theory, as such, the evidence of P.W.6 is of no avail to the case of prosecution.
15.The prosecution examined the shop owner, who witnessed the deceased on 28.01.2022 at her shop, as P.W.7, but she stated that on 30.01.2022 evening the 1st accused came to her and told her that the deceased was not found and he gave complaint to the Police, except that she did not state anything, as such, the learned Public Prosecutor declared her hostile and cross-examined her, but nothing worthwhile could be elicited. However, during her cross-examination by the learned Counsel for the 1st accused, she stated that she went to the Police Station after four or five days after the incident and that she did not see the CCTV footage. During her cross- examination by the learned Counsel for the 2nd accused, she denied that she stated before the Police as in Ex.D.4, wherein it was mentioned that:
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 18 Sessions Case 10/2024
“తే. 28.01.2022 ది శు�క్ర"వారు� రాతిf ముgత్స�రాల� లక్ష్మిi డు0�టీ దిగి వసు�k �డుగ్రా కొత్సkవలసు కారు- స్టాం' �డు� ద్దగmరిలో నాగరాజు బం�డి ఎకిo�చు�కొని విజయ్యనుంగరు� రోడు�r లో ” వెళ్ళuట్టు� మా సురు;�చుముMక్ర� చెంప;గ్రా నాక్ర� సురు;�చుముM దాvరా తెలింసినుంది
Though P.W.7 denied the statement and though P.W.7 turned hostile, still the content in the above statement goes to show that the 1st accused was the person with whom lastly the deceased moved. Hence, though the contradiction in the statement of P.W.7 was got marked by the accused, it has no much importance and basing on the same, the accused cannot plead innocence and exemption.
16.The person to whom the deceased informed about the harassment caused by the 1st accused towards her as P.W.8, who stated that about three months prior to the death, the deceased came to her and informed that the 1st accused is harassing her and he developed illicit intimacy with another woman and further stated that on 02.02.2022, the 1st accused came to her house and informed that the deceased was missing and further informed that he gave report to the Police and she further stated that the 1st accused asked her to say before the Police that the deceased came along with one person wearing helmet and deceased along with that person left that place, but she did not accept the request of the 1st accused and later the 1st accused called her husband and also requested the same to her husband, for which, her husband also did not agree and that on 04.02.2022, she came to know through her husband that the deceased died. The learned Public Prosecutor declared the witness hostile and cross-examined her wherein she admitted that she stated before the Police that two-to-three times she called the 1st accused scolded him for his behaviour and that the 1st accused harass the deceased to give divorce.
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 19 Sessions Case 10/2024
16.1. During her cross-examination by the learned Counsel for the 1st accused, P.W.8 stated that she never went to the house of the deceased and the 1st accused and admitted that she came to know the death of deceased through P.W.3. Even though the evidence of P.W.8 was declared hostile by the learned Public Prosecutor, still the fact remains for consideration from her evidence is that she was asked by the accused to say before the Police that the ‘deceased came along with one person wearing helmet and deceased along with that person left that place...’, which clearly manifests the intention of the accused to eliminate the deceased.
17.The brother of the deceased was examined by the prosecution as
P.W.9, who stated that he is a resident of Vuddavolu village and he is a carpenter and that the deceased is his sister and she was given in marriage with the 1st accused about 8 years prior to her death and their marriage was performed with the acceptance of their family and after the marriage, his sister gave birth to male child and that deceased used to come to their house and that she informed that 1st accused developed illicit intimacy with the 2nd accused and then they consoled deceased and sent her back to matrimonial house and that he came to know about the death of his deceased sister on 04.02.2022 through his wife, after coming to know the same, he and his brother went to the village, there, on enquiry with the villagers, they informed him that on 28.01.2022, when his sister was returning back from sweet shop, 1st accused picked her on his bike and took her to the cashew tope and burnt her and that he was examined by the Police and recorded his statement.
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 20 Sessions Case 10/2024
17.1. During his cross-examination by the learned Counsel for the 1st accused, P.W.9 stated that he has no personal knowledge about the incident and he came to know about the incident through P.W.3, hence, he can be construed as a hearsay evidence. Of course, merely on the ground of hearsay, the entire evidence of witness cannot be thrown aside.
17.2. During his cross-examination by the learned Counsel for the 2nd accused, P.W.9 stated that his family did not attend the marriage of the 1st accused and the deceased. According to him, deceased came to their house for twice or thrice and informed about the illicit intimacy of the 1st accused with the 2nd accused prior to giving birth to child. This version of P.W.9 is different from the prosecution theory since according to the prosecution, both deceased and 1st accused lead happy marital life for four years and gave birth to male child during that period. If really, there is any illicit intimacy in between accused 1 and 2 even prior to the birth of the child, the disputes would have been arose even prior to the birth of the child but not after the birth of the child. Hence, merely relying on the evidence of P.W.9 regarding the illicit intimacy, in view of inconsistency, as stated supra, this Court is unable to accept the alleged illicit intimacy in between the accused 1 and 2, which is the sole reason for the 1st accused to kill the deceased and this Court has no hesitation to hold that the prosecution failed to prove the alleged illicit intimacy in between the accused 1 and 2 even through the evidence of P.W.9.
18.The prosecution examined the maternal aunt of the 2nd accused as P.W.10 who stated that she is having a scooty bearing registration No.AP 39 FU 3678 and that in the year 2022, the Police took away her vehicle stating that the Inspector of Police directed to bring her vehicle and she does not
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 21 Sessions Case 10/2024
remember the exact date, except that she did not state anything about the case, hence the learned Public Prosecutor declared her hostile and cross- examined her, but nothing worthwhile could be fetched in favour of prosecution theory, as such, the evidence of P.W.10 is of no avail to the case of prosecution.
19.The person from the 1st accused took petrol in a half-a-liter bottle was examined as P.W.11, who stated that he is a resident of Kothavalasa and he is working a Company and he knows 1st accused being the resident of his neighbouring village and that on 29.01.2022, the 1st accused approached him and asked her to give petrol as his vehicle was stopped due to lack of petrol and accordingly, he had given petrol in a half-a-liter plastic bottle/M.O.15 bottle and later he came to know in the evening that the 1st accused killed his wife.
19.1. During his cross-examination by the learned Counsel for the
Accused he stated that he took petrol from his vehicle AP 31 BB 5868 and gave to the 1st accused and his vehicle was not seized by the Police. He denied that he is deposing false at the instance of the Police.
20.The person who exhibited the CCTV footage was examined by the prosecution as P.W.12, who stated that he is working as a Constable in
I.T.Core Team and that on 16.03.2022, Inspector of Police called him and instructed him to show the CCTV footage to the Constable on that he showed the CCTV footage and he downloaded the same in the Compact Disc and handed over the same (Exs.P.3 and P.4).
20.1. During his cross-examination by the learned Counsel for the 1st accused, he stated that there is no written requisition from the Inspector of
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 22 Sessions Case 10/2024
Police, but he added that there is a requisition to the D.I.G. Technical service.
He further stated that he has not given the full footage of CCTV and that he downloaded the CCTV footage timing mentioned by the Inspector of Police and he downloaded the CCTV footage from 07:00 to 08:00 p.m., but denied that the CCTV footage was tampered. According to P.W.12, as per the directions of the higher Authorities, he downloaded the CCTV footage, but he has not filed any document to show that as per the directions of the higher
Authorities, he did so. Even though no copy of order is produced by P.W.12 with regard to the directions given to him to download the CCTV footage, still his evidence inspires confidence for the reason that whatever he did is only basing on either oral written directions of his Officials, hence, this Court felt that even though he was cross-examined by the learned Defence Counsel, nothing favourable material could be elicited for the accused.
21.The prosecution examined the son of the deceased and other 1st accused as P.W.13, and, the Court after putting basic questions to ascertain that whether he is able to give rational answers, since he is a minor, considered as a competent witness. He stated that he is staying with the 1st accused and his mother died while he was studying II standard and his aunt informed him that his mother died and P.W.10 took him to the Hospital for the purpose of his collection blood samples. During his cross-examination by the learned Counsel for the 1st accused he stated that during life time of his mother, his parents took him to out and there were no disputes in between them. No cross-examination was done by the learned Counsel for the 2nd accused to this witness.
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 23 Sessions Case 10/2024
22.The prosecution examined one of the inquest panchayatdars as
P.W.14, who stated that that he is a resident of Jodimeraka village and he knows the accused and deceased and the deceased died in the month of
January, 2022 and he came to know about the death of the deceased on 04.02.2022, immediately, he went to the scene of offence and as per the request of the Village Revenue Officer, he acted as mediator for inquest panchanama and hair and ash was collected in their presence and the deceased died of burnings and Ex.P.11/Inquest Panchanama 22.1. During his cross-examination by the learned Counsel for the 1st accused, he stated that on his own, he went to the scene of offence after he came to know about the death of the deceased and by that time, he reached the scene of offence, Village Revenue Officer, Sarpanch and Ward Members were also present there, he denied that he did not go to the scene of offence and deposing false. Except the suggestion, which is denied by P.W.14, the accused could not fetch and favourable material from the cross-examination of
P.W.14, hence the evidence of P.W.14 is trustworthy regarding his presence at the time of inquest and acting as one of the inquest panchayatdars.
23.One of the mediators for the CCTV footages was examined by the prosecution as P.W.15, who stated that he is working as Village Revenue
Officer, Ganisettypalem and that previously, he worked as Village Revenue
Officer, Uttaravalli village and that on 16.03.2022 as per the instructions of their Mandal Revenue Officer, he and L.W.25/Patnala Madhu went to
Kothavalasa Police Station at about 11:30 a.m. by that time P.W.3, ward members were present, the Inspector of Police requested to act as mediators for CCTV footages, then Inspector of Police informed that CCTV footages are
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 24 Sessions Case 10/2024
received from DIG office and first CCTV footage Dt.28.01.2022 between 07:00 and 08:00 p.m. shows a lady wearing white top and green pant going from
Vizag road to Vizianagaram road at Kothavalasa junction and she is holding white cover and 2nd CCTV footage also shows a lady is near Police control room and 3rd footage is at Girijala junction in that a lady going on scooty as a pillion rider and the lady is same in all the three CCTV footages and they identified the said lady as wife of the 1st accused and then CCTV footages were stored in C.Ds under Exs.P.3 and P.4 and one of the persons in computer room of Police Station drafted the Ex.P.12/mediators report, wherein, he signed.
23.1. During his cross-examination by the learned Counsel for the 1st accused, P.W.15 stated that there is no written requisition from the Mandal
Revenue Officer and by the time when he reached the Police Station, P.Ws.3 and 7 were also present. Though it could be elicited from P.W.15 that he does not know what conversation took place in between P.W.3 and Police, this
Court unable to find the same as serious lapse for prosecution for the reason even by the time when P.W.15 went to the Police Station, P.W.3 was present, and, he is not supposed to disclose the things that were happened in his absence. Even though he pleaded ignorance as regards the name of the person, who drafted Ex.P.12, there is no any strict rule that a person who signs any document must know the name of the Scribe and the person who signs on a document should know the contents but not the name of the scribe or author. Hence, the non-awareness of the name of the scribe of Ex.P.12 by
P.W.15 cannot be a ground to doubt the veracity in his testimony. Though
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 25 Sessions Case 10/2024
P.W.15 stated that no male person is found in the CCTV footages, basing on the same, the entire case of the prosecution cannot be brushed aside.
24.The prosecution examined the Deputy Civil Surgeon as P.W.16, who stated that he received requisition from the Inspector of Police and accordingly, he collected the blood samples from P.W.13 for DNA examination and handed over the same to the Inspector of Police. During his cross- examination by the learned Counsel for the 1st accused, he denied that he has not collected the blood samples from P.W.13 and he is deposing false at the instance of Police. Though he denied the said suggestion, but stated that he did not receive any written requisition. Of course, the mode of requisition as to whether it is oral or written, the fact remains for consideration is that
P.W.16 collected the blood samples from P.W.13. To that extent, the evidence of P.W.16 is believable since the 1st accused could not elicit anything in his favour.
25.The Assistant Director, R.F.S.L., who conducted bio-chemical examination was examined by the prosecution as P.W.17, who stated that she received requisition from Sub Divisional Police Officer, Visakhapatnam in
Cr.No.24/2022 of Kothavalasa Police Station and that on on 16.02.2022, she received sealed box through PC.572 accordingly, she conducted bio-Chemical and Immunological examination and she issued Ex.P.13/R.F.S.L report and as per her examination Human blood is detected on item No.1, Blood group of blood stains on item No.1 is of “A” and that the Blood is not detected on item
No.2 which is received as control for items No.1. During her cross- examination by the learned Counsel for the 1st Accused, she denied that she
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 26 Sessions Case 10/2024
did not conduct the examination as per the standards and she is deposing false at the instance of the Police.
26.The Tahsildar, who conducted the inquest over the dead body was examined by the Prosecution as P.W.18, who stated that he is working as
Tahsildar, Lakkavarapu Kota and previously, he worked as Tahsildar,
Kothavalasa and that on 04.02.2022, he received requisition from Station
House Officer, Kothavalasa to conduct Inquest over dead body of deceased at about 12:00 noon, he visited scene of offence, by the time he reached scene of offence, Inspector of Police and other Police personnel and some others were present there, the scene of offence is a cashew tope at the road leading to
Vizianagaram from Kothavalasa and he observed burnt ash and some bones resembling human body and that he also found metal bangles and metal
Mettelu and single patti and one piece of cloth of a wearing apparel of a woman and seven feet from there he also observed long hair M.O.7 and M.O.8 are hair. M.O.9 and M.O.10 are blood stain stones and that Mos.1 to 6 were also seized in his presence and he also examined blood relatives and he conducted Inquest in the presence of P.W.4 and 5, blood relatives of the deceased and Village Revenue Officers and that the mediators opined that the death due to setting fire, Ex.P.11 is Inquest Report and that he also enquired the last seen person and mentioned in Col.No.4 of Ex.P.11.
26.1. During his cross-examination by the learned Counsel for the 1st accused, he stated that there is no dead body present at the scene of offence, but he added that burnt ashes of body was there. According to him, by the time he reached the scene of offence, clues team was present. Even though
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 27 Sessions Case 10/2024
P.W.18 was cross-examined, nothing worthwhile could be elicited to disbelieve his testimony regarding the conducting of inquest.
27.The prosecution examined the Investigating Officer, who visited the scene of offence, observed the same and got photographed the same as
P.W.19, who stated that that he is working as Sub Inspector of Police, Special branch, Parvathipuram and that previously, he worked as Sub Inspector of
Police, Clues team, Vizianagaram and that on 04.02.2022, on oral instructions of Station House Officer, Kothavalasa, he visited scene of offence along with his team, he reached scene of offence at 10:00 a.m., his team observed that there is pit in a cashew tope and they found ashes and examined minutely ash and some bones resembling human body and that he also found metal bangles and metal Mettelu and single patti and one piece of cloth of a wearing apparel of a woman and seven feet from there and he also observed long hair and that he seized M.Os.1 to 10 and they also photographed and videographed the scene of offence and that Ex.P.14 is the list of material object seized by them at the time inspection of scene of offence and handed over same to Station
House Officer, Kothavalasa/ L.W.32.
27.1. During his cross-examination by the learned Counsel for the 1st accused, P.W19 denied that he has not received any oral instructions of
Station House Officer, Kothavalasa nor he visited scene of offence along with my team nor he observed that there is pit in a cashew tope nor found ashes and examined minutely ash and some bones resembling human body nor he also found metal bangles and metal Mettelu and single patti and one piece of cloth of a wearing apparel of a woman nor he observed long hair nor seized
M.Os.1 to 10 nor got photographed and videographed the scene of offence not
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 28 Sessions Case 10/2024
drafted Ex.P.14 nor handed over same to the Inspector of Police. Even though P.W.19 was put to much cross-examination by the learned Counsel for the 1st accused, nothing worthwhile could be elicited to discard his testimony with regard to visiting of scene of offence, observing the same and seizure of material objects etc., on the other hand, the evidence of P.W.19 inspires confidence regarding the complicity of the 1st accused. But, a perusal of overall evidence of P.W.19 he did not even a single word against the 2nd accused. Hence, as discussed supra, this Court could able to conclude that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the 2nd accused even through the evidence of P.W.19.
28.The prosecution examined the Investigating Officer, who did investigation and filed the charge sheet as P.W.20, who stated that he is working as Inspector of Police, Special Branch, Anakapalli and previously, he worked as Inspector of Police, Kothavalasa from 20.06.2021 to 15.07.2023 and that on 30.01.2022, the 1st accused came to Police Station and gave report basing on the same he registered case in Cr.No.24/2022 U/s women missing and issued Ex.P.15/F.I.R. and deputed to L.W.31/ASI, Kothavalasa for investigation and that on 04.02.2022 at 09:30 a.m., P.W.1 came to Police
Station gave report along with the 1st accused with statement basing on the same, he altered the section of law from women missing into 302, 201 of I.P.C and submitted Ex.P.16/altered FIR to the Court and all concerned and later he secured the mediators P.W.1, L.W.17/Adavi Naidu, the 1st accused lead them to scene of offence and showed the scene of offence and he examined the scene of offence with the help of clues team and prepared scene observation
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 29 Sessions Case 10/2024
report/Ex.P.8 and photographed and videographed the scene of offence and seized M.Os.1 to 10.
28.1. P.W.20 further stated that he examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and recorded their statements and he sent requisition to P.W.18 to conduct Inquest and
P.W.18 conducted Inquest and that on 04.02.2022 at 03:00 p.m., he arrested the 1st accused in the presence of mediators P.W.1, L.W.17/Adavi Naidu and recorded the confession statement of the 1st accused at Police Station and the 1st accused lead them to the his house at Jodumeraka village and there he/P.W.20 seized M.Os.13 to 16 and drafted mediators report/Ex.P.7 and the 1st accused was produced before the Court for Judicial remand and basing on confession of the 1st accused on 05.02.2022, on receipt of information, he secured the presence of P.W.1 and L.W.17/Adavi Naidu along with P.W.3 went to Gidijala junction, there they found the 2nd accused and on interrogation, she revealed her name and confession of commission of offence and after recording the confession statement of the 2nd accused in the presence of
P.W.1, L.W.17/Adavi Naidu, P.W.3 and after informing the grounds of arrest, they arrested the 2nd accused and produced before the Court.
28.2. P.W.20 further stated that on 06.02.2022, he secured P.W.6,
P.W.7, and 8 and recorded their statements and that on 07.02.2022, he secured the presence of Chebrolu Ramu, Urli Pothu Raju (L.Ws.9 and 10) and
P.W.8 and recorded their statements and that on 08.02.2022, he secured
P.W.9, L.W.13/Sarapinti Veerachari and recorded their statements and that on 09.02.2022, he secured P.Ws.10 and 11 and recorded their statements and later on, he filed a memo for recording the statements of witnesses and sent
M.O.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11 for F.S.L. Amaravathi and he also sent to M.O.9 to
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 30 Sessions Case 10/2024
R.F.S.L, Visakhapatnam and that P.W.16 collected blood samples of P.W.13 for
D.N.A test and Ex.P.17 is D.N.A report of P.W.13 and that on 16.03.2022, on her requisition technical team, Vijayawada to Station House Officer,
Kothavalasa sent three mails, on receipt of mails, he secured the presence of
P.W.3, P.W.15, L.W.24/Golla Gopi Nagaraju and identified and sent to F.S.L,
Amaravathi. Ex.P.18 is the certificate for CCTV footage/ Ex.P.12.
28.3. P.W.20 further stated that he secured the presence of mediators
P.W.3, P.W.7, P.W.15, L.W.24/Golla Gopi Naga Raju, L.W.25/Patnala Madhu and in their presence, he verified the CCTV footages, in the first footage at about 07:26 p.m. of 28.01.2022 and that he found one lady coming from
Visakhapatnam to Vizianagaram road wearing white top and green chunni, green pant with a white cover in her hand and that in the 2nd CCTV footage which was at Kothavalasa junction at unused Police sub-control room junction at about 07:30 p.m., the same lady was found walking from junction to
Vizianagaram road, and in the 3rd CCTV footage at Gidijala junction at about 07:34 p.m. the same lady was found coming from Gidijala junction to
Vizianagaram, and he found one male person taking the lady on his scooty bearing registration No.AP 39 FU 3678.
28.4. P.W.20 further stated that the lady who was found in CCTV footages identified by P.W.3 and P.W.7 as the deceased and all the CCTV footages were saved in C.D/ Exs.P.3 and P.4 and in the presence of mediators
P.W.3, P.W.7, P.W.15, L.W.24/Naga Raju, and L.W.25/Madhu and C.Ds were forwarded for F.S.L Amaravathi for analysis and he examined P.W.12 recorded his statement and that on 20.03.2022, he examined P.W.16 and recorded his
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 31 Sessions Case 10/2024
statement and that after receipt of R.F.S.L and F.S.L, DNA and final opinion reports and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.
28.5. During his cross-examination by the learned Counsel for the 1st accused, he has not filed the missing complaint given by the 1st accused in this
Court, but the same cannot be considered as a serious lapse for the prosecution for the reason the said report by the 1st accused seems to be escape from his liability and hence even if there is any such report, the same has no much importance. P.W.20 categorically stated that there are no eyewitnesses in this case, but he added that this case depends on the ‘last seen’ theory. He stated that he did not examine the parents of the deceased,
Owner of the sweet shop and the so called persons with the name Demudu and Venkat, but this Court did not find any fault on the part of the
Investigating Officer in non-examining the parents of the deceased and the above persons in view of the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 4 before whom the 1st accused confessed his guilt and P.W.4 who had seen the 1st accused and the deceased lastly.
28.6. P.W.20 stated that he did not seize any Call Date Record. This part of omission on the part of the Investigating Officer disproves the contention of the prosecution that only because of illicit intimacy of the 1st accused with the 2nd accused, he eliminated the deceased at her instance. If really, the 2nd accused instigated the 1st accused or both of them conspired, definitely, the prosecution would have seized the call data record to prove the alleged conspiracy in between them or provocation by the 2nd accused to the 1st accused to remove the deceased from their way. However, the admission of
P.W.20 with regard to non-seizure of finger prints nor blood samples cannot be
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 32 Sessions Case 10/2024
said to be fatal to the case of prosecution for the reason that even by the time when the death of the deceased came to the light, there remained only ash of her. In such circumstances, the seizure or blood samples or finger prints is not possible.
28.7. P.W.20 though admitted that he obtained signature of the accused but did not note the date on the confession statement and mediators report. In view of the consistent and convincing evidence of P.W.1 with regard to the confession of the accused with regard to his complicity before P.W.1, the mere non-noting of the date underneath the signature of the 1st accused does not take away the case of prosecution. It might be true that Ex.P.3 and 4 do not show the deceased was getting on and getting down from the bike, but in view of the consistent evidence of P.W.4 as regards to going of deceased with the 1st accused, mere non-visibility of her in Exs.P.3 and P.4 does not cut the prosecution in its entirety. Furthermore, except suggesting by the learned
Counsel for the 1st accused to P.W.20 that Exs.P.3 and P.4 are fabricated, the accused did not make any attempt to get them examined by the Expert if really he felt that they were tampered or fabricated. Hence, this Court is of firm view that when the prosecution could able to prove Exs.P.3 and P.4, it is
for the accused to disprove the same, but he failed to do so, thereby this Court
is unable to convince with argument of the learned Counsel for the 1st accused in this dimension.
28.8. Even though P.W.20 admitted in his cross-examination that he did not mention the make colour of M.O.13/Bike, this Court did not find any seriousness in the said omission since the going of deceased on the bike was well-established by the prosecution through the evidence of P.W.4. P.W.20
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 33 Sessions Case 10/2024
further admitted that there was a prior complaint with regard to the disputes in between the 1st accused and the deceased. This part of admission goes in adverse to the case of the prosecution since even from suggestion, the 1st accused himself exposed the differences in between him and the deceased, which, in normal circumstances, drives even a common lane to raise a suspicion against the 1st accused to kill his wife.
28.9. P.W.20 admitted though admitted that he did not file the photographs of scene of offence, but asserted that he filed the Compact Disc (CD). This Court did not find any lacuna on the part of the prosecution in not filing the photographs when the CD to that extent is filed, further, it is also not the case of the 1st accused that the contents in the said Compact Disc did not show the place of offence, moreover, he made it clear that by the time, when he reached the place of offence, the Clues Team took the videographed the scene of offence. According to P.W.20, there are two scenes of offences and hence the burnt material was secured from the two places. P.W.20 admitted that the clues team did not mention the length of the hair and size of bangles in the report. May be said fact is true, but it does not alone sufficient to destroy the case of prosecution for the reason the accused failed to place any contra material that the said piece of hair and bangles do not pertain to the deceased.
28.10. Even though it could be elicited from P.W.20 that there is no mention in Exs.P.7 and P.12 as to who drafted the same. But, as discussed in preceding paragraphs, mere non mentioning the name of the author or scribe cannot be a sole ground to disbelieve these couple of documents since the contents prevail over the description of the Author, since the accused failed to
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 34 Sessions Case 10/2024
place any convincing material before the Court to show that the contents of these two documents are not correct. Thus, even though P.W.20 was put to a lengthy cross-examination by the learned Counsel for the 1st accused, nothing worthwhile could be eliciting fetching the case of the 1st accused, therefore, this Court has no hesitation to hold that through the evidence of P.W.20, the prosecution could able to prove the complicity of the 1st accused in commission of the offence.
28.11. During his cross-examination by the learned Counsel for the 2nd accused, P.W.20 admitted that in Ex.P.2, the name of the 2nd accused is inserted in between the gaps, this part of admission clearly emphasizes the innocence of the 2nd accused so also her inclusion in this case. Hence, basing on this admission of P.W.20 apart from the above discussion in preceding paragraphs as regards the role of the 2nd accused, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the 2nd accused is not at all responsible for the death of the deceased and it can be safely concluded that even through the evidence of
P.W.20, the prosecution failed to prove anything against the 2nd accused in the present crime.
29.The prosecution examined the learned Magistrate, who recorded 164, Cr.P.C. statements of witnesses as P.W.21, who stated that she is working as Junior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem and previously, she worked as Judicial
Magistrate of I Class, Kothavalasa from July, 2022 to April, 2023 and that the
Inspector of Police, Kothavalasa filed a memo for recording 164, Cr.P.C.
statements of P.Ws.3 to 8 and L.W.7/Jodu Narasimhulu, accordingly, she recorded the statements of P.Ws 3 to 8 and L.W.7/Jodu Narasimhulu. She further stated that P.W.3 stated before her that 1st accused is her relative’s son
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 35 Sessions Case 10/2024
and his wife Laxmi belongs to Therlam mandal and they performed your marriage eight years ago at Simhachalam when both of them loved each other and lived happily for three years and were blessed with a son/Yeswanth who is aged about 07 years, thereafter, 1st accused got acquaintance with the 2nd accused and thereafter 1st accused did not look after his wife and son and you used to demand her to give divorce and whenever she refused, the 1st accused used to beat her and the matter was placed in Police Station, but, there is no change and that on 29th January between 09:00 a.m and 10:00 a.m. the wife of the 1st accused was found missing and that on 30th January, complaint was given to police wherein 1st accused also signed and that she/P.W.3 got a doubt against the 1st accused and she told the same to Inspector of Police, after three days, the 1st accused confessed before P.W.1 that he took Laxmi to a cashew nut garden which is in Pedagoppu, beat her with a big stone and set her, fire by poring petrol 29.1. P.W.21 further stated that P.W.4 stated before her that the 1st accused loved Laxmi who belongs to Therlam mandal and they performed their marriage they had a boy and after the birth of their boy, they lived happily for few days, the 1st accused got acquaintance with Mounika/Accused
No.2 of you and demanded Laxmi to give divorce, when she refused the 1st accused used to harassed her by not providing food and when the matter was placed before the elders they also told the 1st accused to look after his wife and son and that when the 1st accused was taking Laxmi on a bike and later he/P.W.4 came to know that the Laxmi was found missing and he also came to know that a case was registered and he told to P.W.3 that day before the previous night, he saw the 1st accused took Laxmi on a bike and in the
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 36 Sessions Case 10/2024
meanwhile, the 1st accused also confessed before P.W.1 that he committed murder, by pouring petrol and later Police arrested him.
29.2. P.W.21 further stated that P.W.5 stated before her that 1st accused is his nearest relative, he was married 8 years ago 1st accused and his wife happily for few days, later, he got acquaintance with Mounika/Accused
No.2 of you and ever since, there were disputes between 1st accused and his wife and one day Accused No.2 went to house of the 1st accused and told that she was three month pregnant and that Laxmi refused for the same and the elders convinced them and send them, but no change and that the 1st accused tried to get rid of Laxmi and that he/P.W.5 found when the 1st accused took
Laxmi on 28th and that he got a doubt that why he was taking her, since they had no talking terms and later Laxmi was found missing and everyone got doubt on the 1st accused and later the 1st accused confessed before P.W.1 that he committed murder and burnt the body.
29.3. P.W.21 further stated that P.W.6 stated before her that on 28.01.2022, Laxmi was found missing and they thought she was somewhere and later on 31st, Mounika/Accused No.2 came to him and asked a doubt that what will be the punishment if someone committed murder and then he told that to his knowledge, it might be eight years and that she again asked him whether it is possible to come out, by paying amount, on that, he stated that it is possible if the offences are petty offences and then, she told that she called him to ask the said doubt and later, he/P.W.6 came to know that Laxmi died and the 1st accused murdered her.
29.4. P.W.21 further stated that that P.W.7 stated before her that the marriage 1st accused was performed with Laxmi about eight years back and
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 37 Sessions Case 10/2024
both of them lived happily for some and blessed with a son and after the birth of their son, the 1st accused told that he would marry Mounika/Accused No.2 and the 1st accused did not want Laxmi and also asked Laxmi to give divorce and when she refused, the 1st accused made allegations against her and that 10 days prior to her death, Laxmi came to her/P.W.7 with a curry and cried and she stated the 1st accused was following her up to her shop and she got a doubt on him and that on the night of 28th at about 07:00 p.m., the 1st accused took Laxmi from her shop on his bike and on 30th, the 1st accused came to her and told that Laxmi went away with a person, on that, she asked the 1st accused how she could go, by leaving her son and searched for her on surrounding places and after two hours, the 1st accused again came and told that Laxmi was in Sujatha Nagar and she went there on a bike of a person and after they gave complaint, the Police came and they took the 1st accused to Sujatha Nagar to enquiry, prior to that the 1st accused told the persons at
Sujatha Nagar to say lies to police, but, they recorded his conversation and sent the same to the president Ramulamma through Whatsapp and that the
President made her to listen the said conversation and that the 1st accused tried to say lies likewise and that the 2nd accused asked Rajesh what will be the punishment if someone committed murder, said Rajesh is her brother-in- law and he informed the same to her and P.W.3 and on that, they got suspicion and the 2nd accused demanded the 1st Accused through phone to marry her and same was informed to her by the 1st Accused and even though, she tried to convince him, but, he did not listen and that the 1st Accused committed murder on 28th night, by taking Laxmi to Pedda Goppu and he confessed the same before P.W.1.
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 38 Sessions Case 10/2024
29.5. P.W.21 further stated that P.W.8 stated before her that on 02.02.2022 her elder brother Naga Raju came to her house and asked her to tell that Laxmi came to her house along with a boy and also told that the
Laxmi was found missing and his villagers would she complaint against him and then she asked him how she could say when Laxmi did not come to her house and asked 1st Accused to call her husband, for which, the 1st Accused called her (P.W.8) husband through phone and also asked him to say that
Laxmi came to their house for which, her husband also asked the 1st Accused how could they say and he husband recorded the conversation and sent the same to P.W.3 and that two to three months prior to that day, Laxmi came to her house and she cried and told her that the 1st accused demanded her to give divorce and that after Laxmi went away, the 1st accused called her on suspicion and asked her whether Laxmi came to her house, on that, she scolded him, on that he stopped to talk to her and the 1st accused had illicit intimacy with another girl/Accused No.2 and that on 04.02.2022 she came to through P.W.3 that the Laxmi was died and she also came to know that the 1st accused murdered her. Exs.P.19 to P.24 are the 164, Cr.P.C. Statements
PW.3 to P.W.8.
29.6. During her cross-examination by the learned Counsel for the accused, she denied that the witnesses did not give statement before her voluntarily, except that nothing could be elicited from her cross-examination in support of the accused.
30.Thus, from the above evidence, when the prosecution could prove that the death of the deceased is a homicidal death, it has to be seen that how far the prosecution could able to establish that that the accused are
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 39 Sessions Case 10/2024
responsible for the death of the deceased. It was already discussed in the preceding paragraphs that the 2nd accused has no role in the crime and she is not responsible for the death of the deceased.
31.Admittedly, there is no direct witness to the offence and the entire case of prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence, where, the burden is heavily on the prosecution to establish the links. In the case on hand, admittedly, the prosecution did not examine the parents of the deceased, but examined the brother of the deceased, who clearly stated about the disputes in between the 1st accused and the deceased. The other witnesses examined by the prosecution also stated that the deceased used to report to them that the 1st accused was harassing her. Further, even from the evidence of P.W.20, it is clear that the deceased lodged a report against the 1st accused for harassing her. Thus, it is clear that there is strain relationship in between the 1st accused and the deceased, which amply establishes the ‘motive’ on the part of the 1st accused to get rid of the deceased.
31.Now, it has to be seen how far the prosecution could able to prove that the 1st accused killed the deceased. At the first instance, the 1st accused went to P.W.1 and made Extra Judicial Confession before him and P.W.1 along with his report surrendered the 1st accused before the Police Officials. As per the report of P.W.1, after making confession before him, the 1st accused took
P.W.1 to the scene of offence and showed the place where he burnt the deceased. Later, after surrendering the 1st accused before the Police, the 1st accused lead the Police and P.W.1 to the scene of offence, which clearly shows that the scene of offence is in exclusive knowledge of the accused, hence, it can
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 40 Sessions Case 10/2024
be clearly said that the first chain of circumstances was clearly established by the prosecution.
31.1. In this regard, the prosecution heavily relied on the evidence of
P.W.4, who stated that “… while I was at Kothavalasa car stand on road, leading to Vizianagaram, then A.1 came there on his Scooty and deceased came there and both went on scooty towards Vizianagaram”. This version of P.W.4 shows that the deceased lastly went along with the 1st accused, as such, the 1st accused is alone responsible to answer as to what happened to the deceased.
The learned Public Prosecutor while drawing the attention of this Court to ‘last seen theory’ submitted that the entire evidence of prosecution witnesses clearly shows that the 1st accused had disputes with the 1st accused and intended to remove her and thus he hatched up a plan to kill her and in execution of the same, he made the deceased to believe him and took her to the isolated place and killed her. In support of her contentions, the learned
Public Prosecutor relied on a judgment reported in State of Andhra
Pradesh Vs. Patchimala Vigneswarudu @ Viganna 1, wherein, it was observed that:
“(i) Admittedly, the deceased was the wife of the accused and they had strained relations.
(ii) …
(iii) …
(iv) The deceased and accused were last seen in the mid night (intervening night of 5.8.2001 and 6.8.2001) going together from cinema hall after night show, towards village Ayinavilli.
18. In our opinion, above chain of circumstances is complete and leads only to the conclusion that it was the accused/respondent and he alone, who committed the murder of the deceased.” 1 Criminal Appeal NO.436 of 2008, dt.06.01.2016 of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 41 Sessions Case 10/2024
The above judgment clearly shows that the accused and deceased were jointly last seen. The ratio in the above judgment aptly applied to the case on hand since, in the instant case, the 1st accused himself took P.W.1 to the scene of offence at the first instance and showed the same and the same is corroborated with his Extra Judicial Confession. Moreover, as per the evidence of P.W.4 when he was at Kothavalasa car stand, the 1st accused came there on his scooty and deceased also came there and both of them went on scooty towards Vizianagaram and thus, both the 1st accused and deceased were lastly seen by P.W.4 and as per the evidence of P.W.7, she and other villagers have seen the 1st accused and deceased in the CCTV footages and identified them-+, which amply proves that the accused took the deceased in the evening time and thereafter she was found missing and hence in view of the ratio laid down in the above case law, this Court has no hesitation to arrive at conclusion that the 1st accused alone committed the murder of the deceased and the prosecution could able to establish the chain of circumstances.
32.While cross-examining the Investigating Officers, the learned
Defence Counsels pointed out certain discrepancies. For which, the learned
Public Prosecutor submitted that even assuming for a while that there is discrepancy with regard to non-mentioning the names of the authors and non- noting of dates underneath the signatures, it does not cut the root of the prosecution case. In this context, it is apt to refer a judgment in Rajesh
Yadav and another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 2 wherein it was observed that:
2 Crl.Appeal 339, 340 of 2014, dt.04.02.2022 of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 42 Sessions Case 10/2024
“It is settled proposition of Law that even if there are some omissions, contradictions and discrepancies, the entire evidence cannot be disregarded. After exercising care and caution and sifting through the evidence to separate truth from untruth, exaggeration and improvements, the Court comes to a conclusion as to whether the residuary evidence is sufficient to convict the accused. Thus, undue importance should not be attached to omissions, contradictions and discrepancies, which do not go to the heart of the matter and shake the basic version of the prosecution’s witnesses. ”
Thus, in view of the ratio laid down in the above case even though there are certain discrepancies are there in the case of prosecution, in view of the other consistent and corroborative evidence available on record, this Court holds that those discrepancies are trivial in nature and they do not shake the case of prosecution from its root.
33.Now, coming to the role of the 2nd accused, the prosecution witnesses i.e. P.Ws.3 to 5 and 7 though asserted that the 2nd accused is behind the crime since both the accused are having illicit intimacy, but in their 161,
Cr.P.C. statements, which are marked as Exs.D.1 to D.4, they have stated differently, which disproves the contention of the prosecution that the 2nd accused connived in the offence and hence this Court is of considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove guilt of the 2nd accused.
34.As seen from the material, the accused were charged for the offence under Section 201 of IPC, but as seen from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, this Court did not find any sufficient material for the reason that the entire case of the prosecution rests on circumstances evidence and there is no ocular witness for the offence and also to say that the accused caused disappearance of evidence or giving false information to screen the offender, moreover, the 1st accused himself informed the commission of offence to P.W.1 and took him to the place of offence. Assuming for a while that the 1st accused
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 43 Sessions Case 10/2024
had such an ill-motive, he would have mislead P.W.1 and would have taken him to different place, but not to the exact crime scene. Thus, this Court is of firm view that the accused had no intention to cause disappearance, as such, the accused are not liable for the charge under Section 201 of IPC.
35.During arguments, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the because of the acts of the 1st accused, the son of the deceased lost the affection of his mother and became victim by the acts of the accused and hence they are entitled for victim compensation and relied on judgment reported in Shaik Ahamad Basha Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 3 wherein it was observed that:
“Section 357-A of Cr.P.C. was introduced by Act 5 of 2009 with the object of enabling the Court to direct the State to pay compensation to the victim where the compensation under Sections 357, Cr.P.C. is not adequate... ”
The learned Public Prosecutor also referred to copy of the Government Order of Andhra Pradesh State in G.O.Ms.No.43, Dt.15.04.2015. A perusal of the said G.O, at para No.7, procedure for grant of compensation is mentioned, under which, it is mentioned that “whenever a recommendation is made by the Court or on an application by any victim or his/her dependent under Sub
Section (2) of Section 357-A of the Act to the District Legal Services
Authority, the District Legal Services Authority shall examine the case and verify the contents of the claim with regard to the loss or injury caused to the victim arising out of the reported criminal activity and the District Legal
Services Authority, Vizianagaram may call for any other relevant information necessary in order to determine genuineness of the claims. After verifying the claim and on enquiry, shall award compensation, within two months, in 3 Criminal Appeal 930/2010 of Andhra High Court, dt.14.03.2016
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 44 Sessions Case 10/2024
accordance with the provisions of the Scheme. Considering the submissions of the learned Public Prosecutor so also in view of the ratio in Shaik Ahamad
Basha case (supra) and the G.O.Ms.No.43, Dt.15.04.2015, even though the accused was not found to be the guilt of the offence, but in view of admitted fact of death of deceased, which is a great peril to P.W.13/Yaswanth, this
Court is inclined to order for victim compensation to him. Even though the prosecution could not establish the guilt of the accused as discussed supra, but it does not a bar to award to Victim Compensation as enumerated in
Section 357-A of Cr.P.C., Accordingly, this point is answered. Accordingly, this point is answered.
32.In the result, the 1st accused is found not guilty for the charge under Section 201 of IPC and accordingly he is acquitted for the said charge, however, the 1st accused is found guilty for the charge under Section 302 of
IPC and accordingly he is convicted under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C. for the said charge. Whereas, the 2nd accused is found not guilty for the charges under Section 302 and 201 of IPC and accordingly, she is acquitted under
Section 235(1) for the said charges. The bail bonds of the 2nd accused, if any, shall stand canceled. The 2nd accused is directed to execute bond for her due appearance before the Hon’ble High Court in the event of appeal by the
Prosecution.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this 03 rd day of April, 2024.
Sd/- B.Sai Kalyan Chakravathi
Sessions Judge,
Vizianagaram 03.04.2025 (At bench):
The 1st accused is questioned with regard to quantum of sentence, he pleaded mercy. Hence, taking into consideration the gravity of offence and
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 45 Sessions Case 10/2024
nature of crime, the 1st accused is sentenced to imprisonment for life and also to pay fine of ₹.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only), in default of payment of fine, to suffer Simple Imprisonment for one month for the charge under
Section 302 of IPC. The remand period of the accused, if any, shall be given set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.,
M.O.13/Bike shall be returned subject to production of necessary documents and M.Os.1 to 12 and 14 to 16 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.
The 1st Accused is appraised of his right to appeal before the Hon’ble
High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi and free legal aid.
The son of the deceased i.e. P.W.13/Jodu Yaswanth, who is the victim, is at liberty to file an appropriate application before the District Legal
Services Authority, Vizianagaram, for grant of victim compensation under
Andhra Pradesh Victim Compensation Scheme, 2015 under Section 357-A of
Cr.P.C.,
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 03 rd day of April, 2024
Sd/- B.Sai Kalyan Chakravathi
Sessions Judge,
Vizianagaram.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For Prosecution: For Defence: P.W.1:Golla Venkata Raja Ravindra P.W.2:Pogasati Ganesh P.W.3:Jodu Ramulamma P.W.4:Chebrolu Siva P.W.5:Jodi Mutyala Rao P.W.6:Geethala Rajesh P.W.7:Geethala Devi P.W.8:Yesalapau Rani P.W.9:Sarapinti Eswara Rao
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 46 Sessions Case 10/2024
P.W.10:Bobbadi LakshmiNone P.W.11:Togara Sunitha P.W.12:G.Jagadeswara Rao, IT Core Team P.W.13:Jodu Yeswanth P.W.14:Chebrolu Mahesh P.W.15:Patnala Madhu, V.R.O., P.W.16:Dr.V.Koteswara Rao, Deputy Civil Surgeon. P.W.17::K.Geetha Madhuri, Assistant Director P.W.18::D.M.G.N.Prasada Rao, Tahsildar P.W.19::S.V.R.Raju, Inspector of Police P.W.20::S.Bala Surya Rao, Inspector of Police P.W.21: :S.Surya Kiran Sri, Junior Civil
Judge
Exhibits Marked For Prosecution: Ex.P.1:Report given by P.W.1 Ex.P.2:Extra judicial confession Ex.P.3:Compact Disc Ex.P.4:Compact Disc Ex.P.5:Relevant portion in confession statement Ex.P.6:Relevant portion in confession statement Ex.P.7:Mediators’ report Ex.P.8:Scene observation report Ex.P.9:161, Cr.P.C.Statement of P.W.6 Ex.P.10161, Cr.P.C.Statement of P.W.10 Ex.P.11Inquest panchanama Ex.P.12Mediators’ report
Ex.P.13R.F.S.L.Report Ex.P.14Letter Ex.P.15F.I.R. Ex.P.16Altered FIR Ex.P.17:D.N.A Report Ex.P.18Certificate for CCTV footage. Ex.P.19161, Cr.P.C.Statement of P.W.3 Ex.P.20161, Cr.P.C.Statement of P.W.4 Ex.P.21161, Cr.P.C.Statement of P.W.5 Ex.P.22161, Cr.P.C.Statement of P.W.6 Ex.P.23161, Cr.P.C.Statement of P.W.7 Ex.P.24161, Cr.P.C.Statement of P.W.8
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 47 Sessions Case 10/2024
For Accused:
Ex.D.1:Relevant portion in 161, Cr.P.C.Statement of P.W.3 Ex.D.2:Relevant portion in 161, Cr.P.C.Statement of P.W.4 Ex.D.3:Relevant portion in 161, Cr.P.C.Statement of P.W.5 Ex.D.4:Relevant portion in 161, Cr.P.C.Statement of P.W.7
Material Objects Marked
M.O.1: Bones pieces M.O.2: Metal Bangles M.O.3: Kalla Mattelu M.O.4: Burnt Kallu pattilu M.O.5: Ash at first scene of offence M.O.6: Half-burnt green cloth piece M.O.7: Half burnt hair M.O.8: Hair M.O.9: Three stone M.O.10: Small stones (kankara raallu) M.O.11: Ash packet M.O.12: Kankara matti M.O.13: Bike M.O.14: Pipe M.O.15: Bottle M.O.16: Match Box
Sd/- B.Sai Kalyan Chakravathi
Sessions Judge,
Vizianagaram
Copy to the Registrar (Judicial), Hon’ble High Court of A.P. (By way of C.D.) Copy to the Superintendent of Police, Vizianagaram and Director of Prosecution (through Public Prosecutor, Sessions Court, Vizianagaram) Copy to the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Vizianagarammaternal
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 48 Sessions Case 10/2024
IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS JUDGE, VIZIANAGARAM
Present: Sri B.Sai Kalyan Chakravarthi,
Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram
Thursday, the 03rd day of April, 2025
Sessions Case No.10/2024
1 Nameof:Staterepresented bytheInspector of Police, Kothavalasa Police Station Complainant 2 Name of the Accused1. Jodu Naga Raju, S/o late Demudu, aged 33 years, ST Mannemdora by caste, Jodumeraka village, Appannadorapalem Panchayat, Kothavalasa Mandal.
2 Eeti Mounika, D/o late Beemraju, 23 years, ST Mannemdora by caste, rest ditto.
3Date of offence:28.01.2022
4.Place of offence:at Peda Goppu in Survey No.120 of Baligattam revenue village outskirts of Ardhannapalem village of Kothavalasa Mandal in an isolated area covered with deep bushes 5Date of complaint:04.02.2022 6Date of apprehension:24.04.2024 7Whether the Accused is in :On bail jail or bail 8Date of commencement of :16.07.2024 trial 9Date of close of trial:07.02.2025
10.Date of Sentence of :03.04.2025 Judgment
EXPLANATION FOR DELAY IN SESSIONS COURT:- After receipt of the record from Committal Court, the case was numbered as Sessions Case 08/2024. On 04.07.2024 charge framed and trial schedule was fixed and the Trial was started on 23.10.2024. P.Ws.1 to 21 were examined and Ex.P.1 to P.24 and Exs.D.1 to D.4 were marked and M.Os.1 to 16 were exhibited. The Accused is examined U/s 313 Cr.P.C on 29.11.2024 and 20.02.2025. Arguments heard finally on 25.03.2025. Judgment was pronounced on 03.04.2025, thus, there is no delay.
Sd/- B.Sai Kalyan Chakravathi i
Sessions Judge,
Vizianagaram
IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS JUDGE, VIZIANAGARAM
Present: Sri B.Sai Kalyan Chakravarthi,
Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram
Thursday, the 03rd day of April, 2025
Sessions Case No.10/2024
1 Nameof: StaterepresentedbytheInspector of ComplainantPolice, Kothavalasa Police Station 2 Name of the Accused1. Jodu Naga Raju, S/o late Demudu, aged 33 years, ST Mannemdora by caste, Jodumeraka village,AppannadorapalemPanchayat, Kothavalasa Mandal. 2 Eeti Mounika, D/o late Beemraju, 23 years, ST Mannemdora by caste, rest ditto.
:302 of IPC: Punishment for murder 3 Charges 201 of IPC:Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender.
4 Plea of Accused: Not Guilty 5 Finding of the Judge1st accused is guilty for the charge U/s.302 of IPC and both accused are found not guilty for charge U/s.201 of IPC. 2nd Accused is not guilty of charge U/s.302 of IPC. : In the result, 1st accused is found not
6. Sentence or Order guilty for the charge under Section 201 of IPC and accordingly he is acquitted for the said charge, however, the 1st accused is found guilty for the charge under Section 302 of IPC and accordingly he is convicted under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C. for the said charge. Whereas, the 2nd accused is found not guilty for the charges under Section 302 and 201 of IPC and accordingly, she is acquitted under Section 235(1) for the said charges. The bail bonds of the 2nd accused, if any, shall stand canceled. The 2nd accused is directed to execute bond for her due appearance before the Hon’ble High Court in the event of appeal by the Prosecution. the 1st accused is sentenced to imprisonment for life and also to pay fine of ₹.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only), in default of payment of fine, to suffer Simple Imprisonment for one month for the charge under Section 302 of IPC. The remand period of the accused, if any, shall be given set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C., 7 Prosecution conducted by: Public Prosecutor, Vizianagaram 8 Defence conducted: Sri T h a t a R a j u Advocate for the 1st Accused
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 2 Sessions Case 10/2024
Sri Ch.Praveen Raju, Advocate for the 2nd Accused
J U D G M E N T
01. The Inspector of Police of Kothavalasa Police Station laid charge sheet against the Accused alleging that on 28.01.2022 at Peda
Goppu in Survey No.120 of Baligattam revenue village outskirts of
Ardhannapalem village of Kothavalasa Mandal in an isolated area covered with deep bushes, the 1st accused committed murder of his wife/Jodu
Lakshmi (herein after referred as “deceased”), in Crime No.24/2022of
Kothavalasa Police Station under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC.
02.The brief case of the Prosecution is that the deceased is the legally wedded wife of the 1st accused and that on 30.01.2022, the 1st accused lodged a report with the Police stating that his wife/Jodu
Lakshmi went to Sairam Sweets shop for attending work on 28.01.2022 at about 08:30 a.m. but she did not return even late night, upon that he went to the shop and asked the Owner of the said shop, for which, the
Owner informed that after completion of work, she went away, then, he searched for his wife in all possible places, but could not trace, hence lodged the report with the Police for taking action and at the time of her missing, she wore green colour dress. Basing on the said report, S.Bala
Surya Rao/Inspector of Police (L.W.32) registered a case in
Cr.No.24/2022 as “woman missing” and entrusted further investigation to A.Rahiman, ASI (L.W.31).
2.1.On 04.02.2022, Galla Venkata Raju (L.W.1) went to
Kothavalasa Police Station along with the 1st accused and presented a
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 3 Sessions Case 10/2024
report along with Extra Judicial Confession Statement of 1st accused and surrendered him before the Police. The report of Venkata Raju is that on 04.02.2022 at about 07:00 hours, while he was at his residence/Kothavalasa, the 1st accused came to his house and stated that he married one Lakshmi about 08 years back and they were blessed with a male child, thereafter, he suspected her fidelity and thereby he intended to eliminate her and marry the 2nd accused and when he asked his wife for divorce, she refused, at last, he intended to kill her in order to marry the 2nd accused, and, accordingly, on 28.01.2022 night at about 07:30 p.m. he took away his wife from car stand of Kothavalasa on his scooty bearing registration No.AP 39 FU 3678 by making her to believe that they are going to Teertham at Gollapeta, and proceeded towards
Peda Goppu down by Survey No.120 of Baligattam revenue village of
Ardhannapalem village outskirts and took her to an isolated place in deep bushes and killed her by beating her with a stone on the back side of her head for 3 or 4 times indiscriminately after throwing her over the stones, then, he kept sticks and palmyrah leaves over her dead body and poured petrol and lit fire and then he went away to Gollapeta village and on the next day i.e. on 29.01.2022 morning while, he went to same place, he found that some skull was not burnt properly, upon that he took away the same with some distance and lit fire by pouring petrol, by which time, he heard sound of a motorcycle, on that, he afraid that his identity would be revealed, and fled away from there, later, he went to his village and informed the village elders that his wife was found missing and then, he lodged a missing complaint at Kothavalasa Police station on
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 4 Sessions Case 10/2024
30.01.2022. Thus, basing on the report of Venkata Raju, the Inspector of
Police (L.W.32) altered the FIR from “Woman missing” to Section 302 and 201 of IPC on 04.02.2022. During the course of investigation, the
Inspector of Police arrested the accused in the presence of mediators viz.,
Venkata Raju (L.W.1) and Gokada Adavi Naidu (L.W.17) since the accused voluntarily confessed the offence in their presence that he killed his wife with pre-plan and conspiracy of the 2nd accused. The
Investigating Officer examined the witnesses and recorded their statements and produced the 1st accused before the Court for judicial remand. As a part of investigation, the Investigating Officer visited the scene of offence, observed the same, prepared rough sketch, and, thereafter on credible information, he along with the above referred mediators went to Gidijala village and apprehended the 2nd accused and she also voluntarily confessed the offence and arrested her and produced her before the Court for judicial remand. K.Geetha Madhuri, Scientific
Officer, RFSL, Visakhapatnam (L.W.27) analyzed the blood samples and gave her report opining that in item Nos.1 and 2, human blood is detected with “A” group blood. The Mandal Executive Magistrate,
Kothavalasa (L.W.29) conducted inquest over the dead body, at the time of inquest, the 1st accused was also present, after inquest, forwarded the dead body for postmortem examination and after receipt of medical reports and after completion of investigation, he filed the charge sheet.
03.The learned Magistrate, took cognizance for the charges under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC videP.R.C.No.01/2023 committed the case to the Court of Sessions since the offence under Sections 302 IPC is
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 5 Sessions Case 10/2024
exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, duly furnishing the case papers to the Accused.
04.After appearance of the Accused before this Court, they were examined and charges under Sections 302 and 201 are framed against the accused and read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
05.During the trial, the prosecution in support of their case examined P.Ws 1 to 20, got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.24 and exhibited
M.Os.1 to 16.
06.After completion of the prosecution evidence, the Accused were examined under Sections 313 Cr.P.C., by putting the incriminating material in the evidence of prosecution witnesses against the Accused, for which, the Accused denied the same, and reported no defence evidence, but got marked Exs.D.1 to D.4.
07.Heard both sides.
08.Now, the points for determination are:
Whether the Prosecution could bring home the guilt of the accused for charges under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?
Point:
09.
Before adverting to the conclusion with regard to the point-in-
issue, it is apposite to refer to the oral and documentary evidence available onrecord In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined the Village Revenue Officer to whom the accused give extra judicial confession as P.W.1, who stated that he is working as V.R.O,
Relli village. On 04.02.2022 at about 07:00 a.m while he was at his home, the 1st accused came to his house and confessed the commission of offence and he
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 6 Sessions Case 10/2024
drafted extra judicial confession, wherein he/PW.1 and Accused No.1 signed and later on as per confession, Accused No.1 burnt the deceased in cashew tope of Baligattam village and he/P.W.1 asked Accused No.1 to show the place where he burnt the deceased, accordingly Accused No.1 took him to cashew tope of Baligattam village, there he/P.W.1 saw the burnt ash and bones from there, he/P.W.1 took Accused No.1 to Police Station and surrender before
Inspector of Police at about 09:30 a.m., he submitted Ex.P.2/extra judicial confession along with his Ex.P.1/report and he signed on both and he/P.W.1 informed same to our Tahsildar.
9.1.P.W.1 further stated that Accused No.1 took him/P.W.1, Gokada
Adavi Naidu/L.W. 17 and the Police to the scene of offence along with clues team, videographer and Accused No.1 explained the way how he committed the offence and shown them the place where Accused No.1 burnt the body and the Inspector of Police identified ashes at two places and at the first place, they observed ashes, 7 (Seven) bones, metal bangles, mattelu, kalla pattilu, and at the second place half burnt hair, normal hair, ashes and the second place is at a distance of 20 feet from the first place and that the Inspector of
Police also seized blood stained stones and that both the scene of offence were videographed and seized material object and drafted scene observation report and they signed on it.
9.2.P.W.1 further stated that that he identified Ex.P.3/videograph of the Ex.P.4/scene of offence and M.O.1 is bones pieces-7 and M.O.2 is two metal bangles and M.O.3 is “Kalu mattelu”, M.O.4 is burnt “kalu patti”,
M.O.5 is ash at first scene, M.O.6 is half burnt green cloth piece, M.O.7 is half burnt hair, M.O.8 is hair, M.O.9 is three stones, M.O.10 is small stones
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 7 Sessions Case 10/2024
(Kankara Rallu). M.O.11 is ash packet, M.O.12 is kankara matti, he also witness to the Inquest conducted by L.W.29/D.M.G.N.Prasada Rao at that time Inspector of Police, village elders and panchayatdars were also present and Inquest Report was drafted and the Panchayatdars opined that the deceased died due to setting ablaze and that on the same day at the request of
Police, he/P.W.1 went to Police Station and Inspector of Police requested her and L.W.17/Gokada Adavinaidu to act as mediators and in their presence.
9.3.P.W.1 further stated that Accused No.1 confessed the commission of offence and the Police drafted confession statement in their presence and
Accused No.1 further stated that Accused No.1 have kept the bike No.AP 39
FU 3678, pipe, bottle and match box used for commission of offence at his house and stated that Accused No.1 would show and Ex.P.5 is therelevant portion of confession statement and in pursuance confession, Accused No.1 lead them to his house at Jodumeraka and showed the bike, pipe, bottle and match box and Ex.P.6 is relevant portion of confession statement and Ex.P.7 is seizure report and that M.O.13 is bike No.AP 39 FU 3678 and that M.O.14 is pipe and M.O.15 is bottle and that M.O.16 is match box.
9.4. During his cross-examination by the learned Counsel for the 1st accused, P.W.1 admitted that he has not mentioned that at what time he went to scene of offence and how much time he spent at scene of offence. Even though he did not state the time particulars, but the same cannot be considered as a serious lapse since his role is regarding recording the extra judicial confession of the 1st accused and surrendering him to the Police.
P.W.1 stated that he did not collect the bones and ash, but he added that clues team has collected. He further stated that he has not videographed and
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 8 Sessions Case 10/2024
photographed the scene of offence but he added that clues team has videographed and photographed the scene of offence. Even though P.W.1 did not do the said things, he clearly stated that the Clues Team did those things.
Hence, this Court did not find any fault with P.W.1 in not doing with those things. P.W.1 admitted that M.Os.2 to 4 are usually available in market, may be the said fact is true, but in the absence of any contra material by the accused, this Court is unable to convince with the contention of the accused that they are planted or set up for this case. P.W.1 admitted that he visited the scene of offence at the first instance as the accused took him to the scene of offence later on informed to the police about the scene of offence and he also admitted that it is mentioned in Ex.P.8 that by the time he and accused and
Inspector of Police reached the scene of offence the clues team was already there and he added that by the time they reached scene of offence clues team also came to the scene of offence and he also admitted that fingerprints were not obtained by clues team on material objects. According to P.W.1, he drafted the mediators report/Ex.P.7. P.W.1 admitted that date is not mentioned beneath the signatures of the accused in Ex.P.8. Though the date is not mentioned underneath the signature, in view of the consistent evidence of P.W.1, this Court did not find that the non-mentioning the date is fatal to the case of prosecution since the entire episode took place two or three days after the death of the deceased.
9.5.During his cross-examination by the learned Counsel for the 2nd accused, he admitted in Ex.P.1 he mentioned that the 1st accused killed the deceased as there is illicit intimacy with one Demudu of
Bheemannadorapalem. Relying on this admission, the learned Counsel for
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 9 Sessions Case 10/2024
the 2nd accused submitted that there is no illegal intimacy in between the accused 1 and 2 at any time and that this accused is not at all responsible for the killing of deceased by the 1st accused and the 1st accused might have killed the deceased suspecting her fidelity and intimacy with a person by name
Demudu of Bheemannadorapalem village. This Court finds force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the 2nd accused since at the earliest point of time, P.W.1 mentioned the reason for killing of deceased by 1st accused for her intimacy with another person, but not because of any alleged intimacy in between the 1st and the 2nd accused. Hence, from this admission of P.W.1, this Court holds that the 2nd accused cannot be fastened with any liability in the offence.
10.The co-traveler of the deceased to whom the deceased used to report about the harassment caused by the 1st accused was examined by the prosecution as P.W.2,who stated that he is a private employee and that about 2 ½ years back, he used reside at Oppangi village and that he and the deceased used to travel by bus from their village to Rajam and that the deceased used to work in Bakery shop at Rajam, thereafter, the deceased called him and informed that she got married to a person by name
Nagaraju/Accused No.1 and thereafter 1st accused and deceased lived happily for some time and gave birth to one child by name Yeswanth and later the deceased informed that Accused No.1 developed illicit intimacy with the 2nd accused, and that the deceased informed him that Accused No.1 used to harass her and that about 2 ½ years back, he came to know that deceased died and Accused No.1 caused the death of the deceased and accused confessed the commission of offence before P.W.1 and that L.W.3/Jodu
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 10 Sessions Case 10/2024
Ramulamma performed the marriage of Accused No.1 with the deceased and after the marriage, the deceased used to work in bakery shop at Kothavalasa and that he/P.W.2 was examined by the Police and recorded his statement 10.1. During his cross-examination, P.W.2 stated that the deceased is his distant relative. The learned Counsel for the 1st accused argued that since in view of his relationship with the deceased, P.W.2 is speaking false. But, this Court is unable to convince with the said submission since there are catena of decisions which speak that mere relationship cannot be a ground to discard the evidence of a witness, unless the contra is proved or suspicious circumstances established by the Accused. He stated that he cannot say the names of the parents of the deceased. Being a relative of deceased, P.W.1 might have known the names of parents of deceased, however, even not disclosing the name of parents of the deceased cannot be a ground to doubt the veracity in his testimony since he categorically stated that he came to know about the harassment caused by the 1st accused to the deceased.
10.2. During his cross-examination by the learned Counsel for the 2nd accused, he stated that the deceased used to inform him about the illicit intimacy of the accused 1 and 2 over phone, but he cannot say the phone numbers. If really, P.W.2 is informed by the deceased about the intimacy in between the accused, he being a relative would have reacted and would have, at least, informed the same to any of his other relatives or at least, he would have questioned the 1st accused, but he did not so, furthermore, he could not also give any mobile number through which he was informed by deceased about the alleged intimacy in between the accused 1 and 2. Hence, without there being any convincing and cogent material, this Court is unable to accept
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 11 Sessions Case 10/2024
the evidence of P.W.2 with regard to the alleged intimacy in between the accused 1 and 2 and merely basing on the said assertion of P.W.2, this Court is not inclined to held the 2nd accused is the root cause for the offence committed by the 1st accused.
11.The person in whose presence the marriage of the 1st accused and deceased was performed was examined by the prosecution as P.W.3, who stated that she is a Surpanch of Appannadorapalem village and that the 1st accused is her relative and the deceased belongs to Therlam village and that the 1st accused and deceased came to him and informed that they loved each other on that she, L.W.7/Jodu Narasimhulu, L.W.9/Chebrolu Ramu and some elders took them to Simhachalam and performed the marriage of the 1st accused and deceased about 8 years back and both of them lived happily for four years and deceased gave birth to a child by name Yeswanth and that the house of the 1st accused is near to her house and that after four years of their marriage, and that 1st accused fell in love with the 2nd accused, who is also reside near to her/P.W3 house and that after four years of the marriage disputes started between 1st accused and deceased and that the deceased used to work in sweet shop at Kothavalasa and the 1st accused did not work and demanded divorce from the deceased as the 1st accused intended to marry the 2nd accused.
11.1. P.W.3 further stated that deceased came to her and informed her about the disputes between the 1st accused and deceased and that the deceased informed her that she is not willing to give divorce and the 1st accused started physical and mental harassment and later deceased gave complaint to Police and that deceased used to come to her/P.W.3 regularly and
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 12 Sessions Case 10/2024
informed her about her family affairs and that several times panchayat was held and they counseled the 1st accused but of no use and that the deceased did not come to house on 28.01.2022 and they made the 1st accused to give complaint on 02.02.2022 and they all searched for deceased and that Chebrolu
Siva/L.W.5, Jodi Mutyala Rao (L.Ws.4 and 5) informed her that they saw the 1st accused and deceased while they were going on a bike, in the evening hours of 28.01.2022 at Girijala junction and that the 1st Accused confessed the commission of offence before P.W.1 and that she was examined by the Police and she also gave her statement before Magistrate and she was present at the time of Inquest.
11.2During her cross-examination by the learned Counsel for the 1st accused, P.W.3 stated that she stated that about two months prior to the death of the deceased, she gave police report against the 1st accused and the
Police admonished the 1st accused. She stated that she was present when the 1st accused gave complaint regarding the missing of the deceased to the Police.
11.3. During her cross-examination by the learned Counsel for the 2nd accused, P.W.3, upon confrontation of her 161, Cr.P.C. statement, which is marked as Ex.D.1, wherein, it was mentioned that :
“సు�మారు� రెం�డు� సు�వత్స�రుము�ల నుం��డి నాగరాజు త్సనుం భారు� భీమునుం�దొరువలసు గ్రా� మానికి చెం�దినుం దేము�డు� తో అక్ర"ము సు�బం�ధం� పెట్టు�' కొని తిరిగి చు�నుం�ట్టు�- అనుం�మానుం� పెట్టు�' కొని ఇరు�వురు0 గొడువల� పడు�త్స��డేవారు�. దాని కారుణము�గ్రా ఇద్ద9రికీ మునుంసు;రు'<ల� వచ్చా>యి. ”
But,she denied the same and hence the contradiction though marked for the accused is of no avail. According to P.W.3 a panchayat was convened about four years back as regards the alleged illegal intimacy in between the accused 1 and 2, however, she made it clear that for the said panchayat the 2nd accused was not called. When the alleged panchayat is purported to be held to enquire
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 13 Sessions Case 10/2024
about the alleged intimacy in between the accused 1 and 2, the non-calling of 2nd accused, against whom a severe allegation is attributed, creates a doubt in the mind of the Court since P.W.3 did not make any venture even at least mention the names of the so called gentlemen mediators who held the so called panchayat. Hence, this Court is unable to place reliance on the version of P.W.3 with regard to holding of panchayat to discuss or enquire about the alleged illegal intimacy in between the accused 1 and 2, accordingly, this
Court is not inclined to attach any liability to the 2nd accused in the crime.
12.The prosecution also examined the person, in whose presence the marriage of 1st accused and deceased was performed and also to prove the harassment caused by the 1st accused to the deceased so also present at the time of inquest, as P.W.4, who stated that he is a resident of Jodimeraka village and he is running a cell point at Kothavalasa and he knows both the accused and the deceased and that the deceased belong to Therlam village.
P.W.3, L.W.7/Jodu Narasimhulu, L.W.9/Chebrolu Ramu and some elders took 1st accused and deceased to Simhachalam and performed their marriage about 8 years back and that 1st accused and the deceased lived happily for four years and deceased gave birth to a child by name Yeswanth and thereafter, 1st accused fell in love with the 2nd accused and that after four years of the marriage disputes started between 1st accused and deceased and that the deceased used to work in sweet shop at Kothavalasa and 1st accused did not work and demanded divorce from the deceased as 1st accused intended to marry the 2nd accused and he further stated that the 1st accused started physical and mental harassment and later deceased gave complaint to Police.
Several times panchayat was held and elders counseled 1st accused but of no
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 14 Sessions Case 10/2024
use and that on 29.01.2022, he came to know that the deceased was missing and he went to P.W.3 and informed her that while he was at Kothavalasa Car stand on road leading to Vizianagaram then 1st accused came there on his
M.O.13/Scooty and deceased came there and both went on scooty towards
Vizianagaram and subsequently Accused No.1 gave missing complaint to
Police and 1st accused confessed the commission of offence before P.W.1 and in in pursuance of confession 1st accused lead them to scene of offence and he was examined by the Police and he also gave his statement before Magistrate and he was present at the time of Inquest.
12.1. During his cross-examination by the learned Counsel for the 1st accused, P.W.4 stated that stated that he is a ward member since three years under the control of P.W.3 and also stated that he cannot say the name of sweet shop in which the deceased used to work. P.W.4 though unable to say the name of the sweet shop in which the deceased was working prior to her death cannot be a ground to discard his entire evidence. Except the suggestions, which are denied by the witness, the 1st accused could not fetch any material in his favour.
12.2. During his cross-examination by the learned Counsel for the 2nd accused, P.W.4 stated that he did not inform to parents of deceased about her marriage and death and according to him P.W.3 and elders performed the marriage of the 1st accused and deceased at Simhachalam, but he does not know the date of their marriage. His 161, Cr.P.C. statement is confronted to him, wherein it was mentioned as follows:
“సు�మారు� రెం�డు� సు�వత్స�రుము�ల నుం��డి నాగరాజు త్సనుం భారు� భీమునుం�దొరువలసు అనే వ�కిA తో అక్ర"ము సు�బం�ధం� పెట్టు�' కొని తిరిగి గ్రా� మానికి చెం�దినుం దేము�డు� అనుం�మానుం� పెట్టు�' కొని ఇరు�వురు0 గొడువల� పడు�త్స��డేవారు�. దాని చు�నుం�ట్టు�- కారుణము�గ్రా ఇద్ద9రికీ మునుంసు;రు'<ల� వచ్చి> మాట్టు-ము0ట్టు లేక్ర��డా ఒకే ఇ�టిలో
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 15 Sessions Case 10/2024
వేరేగ్రా ఉం�డేవారు�. వారు� త్సరు�చు� గొడువల� పడు�చు��డుడు� నేనుం�, సురు;�చ్ అముM/ రాము�లముM, గీత్సల దేవి, మురి కొ�త్స ము�దిమి లేని పోని అనుం�మానాల� పెట్టు�' కోవద్ద9ని నాగరాజునుం� ము�ద్దలిం�చ్చినాము�. ”
P.W.4 though admitted the said statement, which marked as Ex.D.2, it is no way helpful to the accused, since, the said statement of P.W.4 amply proves strain relation in between the 1st accused and the deceased and from the above statement, an adverse inference can be drawn regarding the ‘motive’ of the accused to get rid of her for the reason he is suspecting the character and fidelity of the deceased.
13.The person who witnessed the 1st accused took away the deceased lastly was examined by the prosecution as P.W.5, who stated that he is a resident of Jodimeraka village and he is an Auto Rickshaw driver and that he knows both the accused and the deceased and that the deceased belong to
Therlam village. P.W.3, L.W.7/Jodu Narasimhulu, L.W.9/Chebrolu Ramu and some elders took 1st Accused and deceased to Simhachalam and performed their marriage about 8 years back and both 1st Accused and the deceased lived happily for four years and deceased gave birth to a child by name
Yeswanth and that after four years of their marriage, 1st Accused fell in love with the 2nd accused and thereafter disputes started between 1st Accused and deceased and that deceased used to work in sweet shop at Kothavalasa and 1st
Accused did not work and demanded divorce from the deceased as he intended to marry the 2nd accused. P.W.5 further stated that 1st accused started physical and mental harassment, later deceased gave complaint to
Police and that several times panchayat was held and elders counseled the 1st accused, but of no use and that on 29.01.2022, he/P.W.5 came to know that the deceased was missing and he went to P.W.3 and informed her that on
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 16 Sessions Case 10/2024
28.01.2022 at about 07:30 p.m., while he was at Kirana shop, Girijala junction, then 1st accused came there on his Scooty and deceased came there and both went on scooty towards Vizianagaram and thereafter the 1st accused gave missing complaint to Police and that the 1st accused confessed the commission of offence before P.W.1 and in pursuance of confession, the 1st accused lead them to the scene of offence and he was examined by the Police and he also gave his statement before Magistrate and that he was present at the time of Inquest.
13.1. The entire cross-examination of P.W.5 is very similar to that of the cross-examination of P.W.4, hence, discussing again would be nothing but a futile exercise. However, it can be concluded that even though P.Ws.4 and 5 were cross-examined by the learned Counsel for the 1st accused nothing worthwhile could be elicited in favour of the 1st accused. Similarly, the evidence of P.Ws.5 and 6 is not at all sufficient to connect the 2nd accused with the offence committed by the 1st accused and this Court did not find any ground from the evidence of P.Ws.4 and 5 that the 2nd accused is the root cause for the death of the deceased. However, upon confronting his 161,
Cr.P.C. statement, P.W.5 and the same is marked as Ex.D.3, wherein it was mentioned that:
“నాగరాజు, నా వదినుం పై లేని పోనీ అనుం�మానాల� పెట్టు�' కొని నా అనుం�య్య� సు�బం�ధం� పెట్టు�' కొని భీమునుం�దొరుపాలెం� గ్రా� మానికి చెం�దినుం దేము�డు� అనుం� తిడు�త్స0 కొడు�త్స0 తిరు�గ��ద్దని ఆమెతో సు�మారు� రెం�డు� సు�వత్స�రుము�ల ఉం�ట్టు�నా�డు�, ఈ విషయ్యమై మా గ్రా� ము సురు;�చ్ జోడు� రాము�లముM, చేబ్రోa ల� శివ, గీత్సల దేవి మురికొ�త్స ము�ది ప�చ్చాయ్యతీ పెటి' మా అనుం�య్య� నాగరాజునుం� గటి'గ్రా తిటి'నారు�. ఈ క్ర"ము�లో మా అనుం�య్య� మా వదినుంతో మాట్టు ము�తి లేక్ర��డా ... ”
But, P.W.5 denied the said statement, however, a perusal of the said statement, it is clear that both the 1st accused and deceased have no cordial relations and the 1st accused used to scold her on the premise of ‘illicit
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 17 Sessions Case 10/2024
intimacy’, which also leads to draw an adverse inference against that the 1st accused inimical disposed of against the deceased and waiting for an opportunity to get rid off. Hence, though the accused sought to rely on
Ex.D.3, the same is no way helpful to him since, in Ex.D.3, it is clear that there are strained relations in between the accused and the deceased.
14.The prosecution examined one of the residents of
Ardhannapalem village as P.W.6, who stated that the 1st accused and deceased lived happily for four years and deceased gave birth to a son by name
Yeswanth. He pleaded ignorance regarding the reasons for the quarrels in between the 1st accused and the deceased. He also stated that he does not know anything about the case. Hence, the learned Public Prosecutor declared the witness hostile and cross-examined him, but during his cross- examination, nothing worthwhile could be elicited in favour of the prosecution theory, as such, the evidence of P.W.6 is of no avail to the case of prosecution.
15.The prosecution examined the shop owner, who witnessed the deceased on 28.01.2022 at her shop, as P.W.7, but she stated that on 30.01.2022 evening the 1st accused came to her and told her that the deceased was not found and he gave complaint to the Police, except that she did not state anything, as such, the learned Public Prosecutor declared her hostile and cross-examined her, but nothing worthwhile could be elicited. However, during her cross-examination by the learned Counsel for the 1st accused, she stated that she went to the Police Station after four or five days after the incident and that she did not see the CCTV footage. During her cross- examination by the learned Counsel for the 2nd accused, she denied that she stated before the Police as in Ex.D.4, wherein it was mentioned that:
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 18 Sessions Case 10/2024
“తే. 28.01.2022 ది శు�క్ర"వారు� రాతిf ముgత్స�రాల� లక్ష్మిi డు0�టీ దిగి వసు�k �డుగ్రా కొత్సkవలసు కారు- స్టాం' �డు� ద్దగmరిలో నాగరాజు బం�డి ఎకిo�చు�కొని విజయ్యనుంగరు� రోడు�r లో ” వెళ్ళuట్టు� మా సురు;�చుముMక్ర� చెంప;గ్రా నాక్ర� సురు;�చుముM దాvరా తెలింసినుంది
Though P.W.7 denied the statement and though P.W.7 turned hostile, still the content in the above statement goes to show that the 1st accused was the person with whom lastly the deceased moved. Hence, though the contradiction in the statement of P.W.7 was got marked by the accused, it has no much importance and basing on the same, the accused cannot plead innocence and exemption.
16.The person to whom the deceased informed about the harassment caused by the 1st accused towards her as P.W.8, who stated that about three months prior to the death, the deceased came to her and informed that the 1st accused is harassing her and he developed illicit intimacy with another woman and further stated that on 02.02.2022, the 1st accused came to her house and informed that the deceased was missing and further informed that he gave report to the Police and she further stated that the 1st accused asked her to say before the Police that the deceased came along with one person wearing helmet and deceased along with that person left that place, but she did not accept the request of the 1st accused and later the 1st accused called her husband and also requested the same to her husband, for which, her husband also did not agree and that on 04.02.2022, she came to know through her husband that the deceased died. The learned Public Prosecutor declared the witness hostile and cross-examined her wherein she admitted that she stated before the Police that two-to-three times she called the 1st accused scolded him for his behaviour and that the 1st accused harass the deceased to give divorce.
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 19 Sessions Case 10/2024
16.1. During her cross-examination by the learned Counsel for the 1st accused, P.W.8 stated that she never went to the house of the deceased and the 1st accused and admitted that she came to know the death of deceased through P.W.3. Even though the evidence of P.W.8 was declared hostile by the learned Public Prosecutor, still the fact remains for consideration from her evidence is that she was asked by the accused to say before the Police that the ‘deceased came along with one person wearing helmet and deceased along with that person left that place...’, which clearly manifests the intention of the accused to eliminate the deceased.
17.The brother of the deceased was examined by the prosecution as
P.W.9, who stated that he is a resident of Vuddavolu village and he is a carpenter and that the deceased is his sister and she was given in marriage with the 1st accused about 8 years prior to her death and their marriage was performed with the acceptance of their family and after the marriage, his sister gave birth to male child and that deceased used to come to their house and that she informed that 1st accused developed illicit intimacy with the 2nd accused and then they consoled deceased and sent her back to matrimonial house and that he came to know about the death of his deceased sister on 04.02.2022 through his wife, after coming to know the same, he and his brother went to the village, there, on enquiry with the villagers, they informed him that on 28.01.2022, when his sister was returning back from sweet shop, 1st accused picked her on his bike and took her to the cashew tope and burnt her and that he was examined by the Police and recorded his statement.
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 20 Sessions Case 10/2024
17.1. During his cross-examination by the learned Counsel for the 1st accused, P.W.9 stated that he has no personal knowledge about the incident and he came to know about the incident through P.W.3, hence, he can be construed as a hearsay evidence. Of course, merely on the ground of hearsay, the entire evidence of witness cannot be thrown aside.
17.2. During his cross-examination by the learned Counsel for the 2nd accused, P.W.9 stated that his family did not attend the marriage of the 1st accused and the deceased. According to him, deceased came to their house for twice or thrice and informed about the illicit intimacy of the 1st accused with the 2nd accused prior to giving birth to child. This version of P.W.9 is different from the prosecution theory since according to the prosecution, both deceased and 1st accused lead happy marital life for four years and gave birth to male child during that period. If really, there is any illicit intimacy in between accused 1 and 2 even prior to the birth of the child, the disputes would have been arose even prior to the birth of the child but not after the birth of the child. Hence, merely relying on the evidence of P.W.9 regarding the illicit intimacy, in view of inconsistency, as stated supra, this Court is unable to accept the alleged illicit intimacy in between the accused 1 and 2, which is the sole reason for the 1st accused to kill the deceased and this Court has no hesitation to hold that the prosecution failed to prove the alleged illicit intimacy in between the accused 1 and 2 even through the evidence of P.W.9.
18.The prosecution examined the maternal aunt of the 2nd accused as P.W.10 who stated that she is having a scooty bearing registration No.AP 39 FU 3678 and that in the year 2022, the Police took away her vehicle stating that the Inspector of Police directed to bring her vehicle and she does not
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 21 Sessions Case 10/2024
remember the exact date, except that she did not state anything about the case, hence the learned Public Prosecutor declared her hostile and cross- examined her, but nothing worthwhile could be fetched in favour of prosecution theory, as such, the evidence of P.W.10 is of no avail to the case of prosecution.
19.The person from the 1st accused took petrol in a half-a-liter bottle was examined as P.W.11, who stated that he is a resident of Kothavalasa and he is working a Company and he knows 1st accused being the resident of his neighbouring village and that on 29.01.2022, the 1st accused approached him and asked her to give petrol as his vehicle was stopped due to lack of petrol and accordingly, he had given petrol in a half-a-liter plastic bottle/M.O.15 bottle and later he came to know in the evening that the 1st accused killed his wife.
19.1. During his cross-examination by the learned Counsel for the
Accused he stated that he took petrol from his vehicle AP 31 BB 5868 and gave to the 1st accused and his vehicle was not seized by the Police. He denied that he is deposing false at the instance of the Police.
20.The person who exhibited the CCTV footage was examined by the prosecution as P.W.12, who stated that he is working as a Constable in
I.T.Core Team and that on 16.03.2022, Inspector of Police called him and instructed him to show the CCTV footage to the Constable on that he showed the CCTV footage and he downloaded the same in the Compact Disc and handed over the same (Exs.P.3 and P.4).
20.1. During his cross-examination by the learned Counsel for the 1st accused, he stated that there is no written requisition from the Inspector of
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 22 Sessions Case 10/2024
Police, but he added that there is a requisition to the D.I.G. Technical service.
He further stated that he has not given the full footage of CCTV and that he downloaded the CCTV footage timing mentioned by the Inspector of Police and he downloaded the CCTV footage from 07:00 to 08:00 p.m., but denied that the CCTV footage was tampered. According to P.W.12, as per the directions of the higher Authorities, he downloaded the CCTV footage, but he has not filed any document to show that as per the directions of the higher
Authorities, he did so. Even though no copy of order is produced by P.W.12 with regard to the directions given to him to download the CCTV footage, still his evidence inspires confidence for the reason that whatever he did is only basing on either oral written directions of his Officials, hence, this Court felt that even though he was cross-examined by the learned Defence Counsel, nothing favourable material could be elicited for the accused.
21.The prosecution examined the son of the deceased and other 1st accused as P.W.13, and, the Court after putting basic questions to ascertain that whether he is able to give rational answers, since he is a minor, considered as a competent witness. He stated that he is staying with the 1st accused and his mother died while he was studying II standard and his aunt informed him that his mother died and P.W.10 took him to the Hospital for the purpose of his collection blood samples. During his cross-examination by the learned Counsel for the 1st accused he stated that during life time of his mother, his parents took him to out and there were no disputes in between them. No cross-examination was done by the learned Counsel for the 2nd accused to this witness.
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 23 Sessions Case 10/2024
22.The prosecution examined one of the inquest panchayatdars as
P.W.14, who stated that that he is a resident of Jodimeraka village and he knows the accused and deceased and the deceased died in the month of
January, 2022 and he came to know about the death of the deceased on 04.02.2022, immediately, he went to the scene of offence and as per the request of the Village Revenue Officer, he acted as mediator for inquest panchanama and hair and ash was collected in their presence and the deceased died of burnings and Ex.P.11/Inquest Panchanama 22.1. During his cross-examination by the learned Counsel for the 1st accused, he stated that on his own, he went to the scene of offence after he came to know about the death of the deceased and by that time, he reached the scene of offence, Village Revenue Officer, Sarpanch and Ward Members were also present there, he denied that he did not go to the scene of offence and deposing false. Except the suggestion, which is denied by P.W.14, the accused could not fetch and favourable material from the cross-examination of
P.W.14, hence the evidence of P.W.14 is trustworthy regarding his presence at the time of inquest and acting as one of the inquest panchayatdars.
23.One of the mediators for the CCTV footages was examined by the prosecution as P.W.15, who stated that he is working as Village Revenue
Officer, Ganisettypalem and that previously, he worked as Village Revenue
Officer, Uttaravalli village and that on 16.03.2022 as per the instructions of their Mandal Revenue Officer, he and L.W.25/Patnala Madhu went to
Kothavalasa Police Station at about 11:30 a.m. by that time P.W.3, ward members were present, the Inspector of Police requested to act as mediators for CCTV footages, then Inspector of Police informed that CCTV footages are
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 24 Sessions Case 10/2024
received from DIG office and first CCTV footage Dt.28.01.2022 between 07:00 and 08:00 p.m. shows a lady wearing white top and green pant going from
Vizag road to Vizianagaram road at Kothavalasa junction and she is holding white cover and 2nd CCTV footage also shows a lady is near Police control room and 3rd footage is at Girijala junction in that a lady going on scooty as a pillion rider and the lady is same in all the three CCTV footages and they identified the said lady as wife of the 1st accused and then CCTV footages were stored in C.Ds under Exs.P.3 and P.4 and one of the persons in computer room of Police Station drafted the Ex.P.12/mediators report, wherein, he signed.
23.1. During his cross-examination by the learned Counsel for the 1st accused, P.W.15 stated that there is no written requisition from the Mandal
Revenue Officer and by the time when he reached the Police Station, P.Ws.3 and 7 were also present. Though it could be elicited from P.W.15 that he does not know what conversation took place in between P.W.3 and Police, this
Court unable to find the same as serious lapse for prosecution for the reason even by the time when P.W.15 went to the Police Station, P.W.3 was present, and, he is not supposed to disclose the things that were happened in his absence. Even though he pleaded ignorance as regards the name of the person, who drafted Ex.P.12, there is no any strict rule that a person who signs any document must know the name of the Scribe and the person who signs on a document should know the contents but not the name of the scribe or author. Hence, the non-awareness of the name of the scribe of Ex.P.12 by
P.W.15 cannot be a ground to doubt the veracity in his testimony. Though
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 25 Sessions Case 10/2024
P.W.15 stated that no male person is found in the CCTV footages, basing on the same, the entire case of the prosecution cannot be brushed aside.
24.The prosecution examined the Deputy Civil Surgeon as P.W.16, who stated that he received requisition from the Inspector of Police and accordingly, he collected the blood samples from P.W.13 for DNA examination and handed over the same to the Inspector of Police. During his cross- examination by the learned Counsel for the 1st accused, he denied that he has not collected the blood samples from P.W.13 and he is deposing false at the instance of Police. Though he denied the said suggestion, but stated that he did not receive any written requisition. Of course, the mode of requisition as to whether it is oral or written, the fact remains for consideration is that
P.W.16 collected the blood samples from P.W.13. To that extent, the evidence of P.W.16 is believable since the 1st accused could not elicit anything in his favour.
25.The Assistant Director, R.F.S.L., who conducted bio-chemical examination was examined by the prosecution as P.W.17, who stated that she received requisition from Sub Divisional Police Officer, Visakhapatnam in
Cr.No.24/2022 of Kothavalasa Police Station and that on on 16.02.2022, she received sealed box through PC.572 accordingly, she conducted bio-Chemical and Immunological examination and she issued Ex.P.13/R.F.S.L report and as per her examination Human blood is detected on item No.1, Blood group of blood stains on item No.1 is of “A” and that the Blood is not detected on item
No.2 which is received as control for items No.1. During her cross- examination by the learned Counsel for the 1st Accused, she denied that she
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 26 Sessions Case 10/2024
did not conduct the examination as per the standards and she is deposing false at the instance of the Police.
26.The Tahsildar, who conducted the inquest over the dead body was examined by the Prosecution as P.W.18, who stated that he is working as
Tahsildar, Lakkavarapu Kota and previously, he worked as Tahsildar,
Kothavalasa and that on 04.02.2022, he received requisition from Station
House Officer, Kothavalasa to conduct Inquest over dead body of deceased at about 12:00 noon, he visited scene of offence, by the time he reached scene of offence, Inspector of Police and other Police personnel and some others were present there, the scene of offence is a cashew tope at the road leading to
Vizianagaram from Kothavalasa and he observed burnt ash and some bones resembling human body and that he also found metal bangles and metal
Mettelu and single patti and one piece of cloth of a wearing apparel of a woman and seven feet from there he also observed long hair M.O.7 and M.O.8 are hair. M.O.9 and M.O.10 are blood stain stones and that Mos.1 to 6 were also seized in his presence and he also examined blood relatives and he conducted Inquest in the presence of P.W.4 and 5, blood relatives of the deceased and Village Revenue Officers and that the mediators opined that the death due to setting fire, Ex.P.11 is Inquest Report and that he also enquired the last seen person and mentioned in Col.No.4 of Ex.P.11.
26.1. During his cross-examination by the learned Counsel for the 1st accused, he stated that there is no dead body present at the scene of offence, but he added that burnt ashes of body was there. According to him, by the time he reached the scene of offence, clues team was present. Even though
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 27 Sessions Case 10/2024
P.W.18 was cross-examined, nothing worthwhile could be elicited to disbelieve his testimony regarding the conducting of inquest.
27.The prosecution examined the Investigating Officer, who visited the scene of offence, observed the same and got photographed the same as
P.W.19, who stated that that he is working as Sub Inspector of Police, Special branch, Parvathipuram and that previously, he worked as Sub Inspector of
Police, Clues team, Vizianagaram and that on 04.02.2022, on oral instructions of Station House Officer, Kothavalasa, he visited scene of offence along with his team, he reached scene of offence at 10:00 a.m., his team observed that there is pit in a cashew tope and they found ashes and examined minutely ash and some bones resembling human body and that he also found metal bangles and metal Mettelu and single patti and one piece of cloth of a wearing apparel of a woman and seven feet from there and he also observed long hair and that he seized M.Os.1 to 10 and they also photographed and videographed the scene of offence and that Ex.P.14 is the list of material object seized by them at the time inspection of scene of offence and handed over same to Station
House Officer, Kothavalasa/ L.W.32.
27.1. During his cross-examination by the learned Counsel for the 1st accused, P.W19 denied that he has not received any oral instructions of
Station House Officer, Kothavalasa nor he visited scene of offence along with my team nor he observed that there is pit in a cashew tope nor found ashes and examined minutely ash and some bones resembling human body nor he also found metal bangles and metal Mettelu and single patti and one piece of cloth of a wearing apparel of a woman nor he observed long hair nor seized
M.Os.1 to 10 nor got photographed and videographed the scene of offence not
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 28 Sessions Case 10/2024
drafted Ex.P.14 nor handed over same to the Inspector of Police. Even though P.W.19 was put to much cross-examination by the learned Counsel for the 1st accused, nothing worthwhile could be elicited to discard his testimony with regard to visiting of scene of offence, observing the same and seizure of material objects etc., on the other hand, the evidence of P.W.19 inspires confidence regarding the complicity of the 1st accused. But, a perusal of overall evidence of P.W.19 he did not even a single word against the 2nd accused. Hence, as discussed supra, this Court could able to conclude that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the 2nd accused even through the evidence of P.W.19.
28.The prosecution examined the Investigating Officer, who did investigation and filed the charge sheet as P.W.20, who stated that he is working as Inspector of Police, Special Branch, Anakapalli and previously, he worked as Inspector of Police, Kothavalasa from 20.06.2021 to 15.07.2023 and that on 30.01.2022, the 1st accused came to Police Station and gave report basing on the same he registered case in Cr.No.24/2022 U/s women missing and issued Ex.P.15/F.I.R. and deputed to L.W.31/ASI, Kothavalasa for investigation and that on 04.02.2022 at 09:30 a.m., P.W.1 came to Police
Station gave report along with the 1st accused with statement basing on the same, he altered the section of law from women missing into 302, 201 of I.P.C and submitted Ex.P.16/altered FIR to the Court and all concerned and later he secured the mediators P.W.1, L.W.17/Adavi Naidu, the 1st accused lead them to scene of offence and showed the scene of offence and he examined the scene of offence with the help of clues team and prepared scene observation
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 29 Sessions Case 10/2024
report/Ex.P.8 and photographed and videographed the scene of offence and seized M.Os.1 to 10.
28.1. P.W.20 further stated that he examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and recorded their statements and he sent requisition to P.W.18 to conduct Inquest and
P.W.18 conducted Inquest and that on 04.02.2022 at 03:00 p.m., he arrested the 1st accused in the presence of mediators P.W.1, L.W.17/Adavi Naidu and recorded the confession statement of the 1st accused at Police Station and the 1st accused lead them to the his house at Jodumeraka village and there he/P.W.20 seized M.Os.13 to 16 and drafted mediators report/Ex.P.7 and the 1st accused was produced before the Court for Judicial remand and basing on confession of the 1st accused on 05.02.2022, on receipt of information, he secured the presence of P.W.1 and L.W.17/Adavi Naidu along with P.W.3 went to Gidijala junction, there they found the 2nd accused and on interrogation, she revealed her name and confession of commission of offence and after recording the confession statement of the 2nd accused in the presence of
P.W.1, L.W.17/Adavi Naidu, P.W.3 and after informing the grounds of arrest, they arrested the 2nd accused and produced before the Court.
28.2. P.W.20 further stated that on 06.02.2022, he secured P.W.6,
P.W.7, and 8 and recorded their statements and that on 07.02.2022, he secured the presence of Chebrolu Ramu, Urli Pothu Raju (L.Ws.9 and 10) and
P.W.8 and recorded their statements and that on 08.02.2022, he secured
P.W.9, L.W.13/Sarapinti Veerachari and recorded their statements and that on 09.02.2022, he secured P.Ws.10 and 11 and recorded their statements and later on, he filed a memo for recording the statements of witnesses and sent
M.O.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11 for F.S.L. Amaravathi and he also sent to M.O.9 to
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 30 Sessions Case 10/2024
R.F.S.L, Visakhapatnam and that P.W.16 collected blood samples of P.W.13 for
D.N.A test and Ex.P.17 is D.N.A report of P.W.13 and that on 16.03.2022, on her requisition technical team, Vijayawada to Station House Officer,
Kothavalasa sent three mails, on receipt of mails, he secured the presence of
P.W.3, P.W.15, L.W.24/Golla Gopi Nagaraju and identified and sent to F.S.L,
Amaravathi. Ex.P.18 is the certificate for CCTV footage/ Ex.P.12.
28.3. P.W.20 further stated that he secured the presence of mediators
P.W.3, P.W.7, P.W.15, L.W.24/Golla Gopi Naga Raju, L.W.25/Patnala Madhu and in their presence, he verified the CCTV footages, in the first footage at about 07:26 p.m. of 28.01.2022 and that he found one lady coming from
Visakhapatnam to Vizianagaram road wearing white top and green chunni, green pant with a white cover in her hand and that in the 2nd CCTV footage which was at Kothavalasa junction at unused Police sub-control room junction at about 07:30 p.m., the same lady was found walking from junction to
Vizianagaram road, and in the 3rd CCTV footage at Gidijala junction at about 07:34 p.m. the same lady was found coming from Gidijala junction to
Vizianagaram, and he found one male person taking the lady on his scooty bearing registration No.AP 39 FU 3678.
28.4. P.W.20 further stated that the lady who was found in CCTV footages identified by P.W.3 and P.W.7 as the deceased and all the CCTV footages were saved in C.D/ Exs.P.3 and P.4 and in the presence of mediators
P.W.3, P.W.7, P.W.15, L.W.24/Naga Raju, and L.W.25/Madhu and C.Ds were forwarded for F.S.L Amaravathi for analysis and he examined P.W.12 recorded his statement and that on 20.03.2022, he examined P.W.16 and recorded his
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 31 Sessions Case 10/2024
statement and that after receipt of R.F.S.L and F.S.L, DNA and final opinion reports and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.
28.5. During his cross-examination by the learned Counsel for the 1st accused, he has not filed the missing complaint given by the 1st accused in this
Court, but the same cannot be considered as a serious lapse for the prosecution for the reason the said report by the 1st accused seems to be escape from his liability and hence even if there is any such report, the same has no much importance. P.W.20 categorically stated that there are no eyewitnesses in this case, but he added that this case depends on the ‘last seen’ theory. He stated that he did not examine the parents of the deceased,
Owner of the sweet shop and the so called persons with the name Demudu and Venkat, but this Court did not find any fault on the part of the
Investigating Officer in non-examining the parents of the deceased and the above persons in view of the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 4 before whom the 1st accused confessed his guilt and P.W.4 who had seen the 1st accused and the deceased lastly.
28.6. P.W.20 stated that he did not seize any Call Date Record. This part of omission on the part of the Investigating Officer disproves the contention of the prosecution that only because of illicit intimacy of the 1st accused with the 2nd accused, he eliminated the deceased at her instance. If really, the 2nd accused instigated the 1st accused or both of them conspired, definitely, the prosecution would have seized the call data record to prove the alleged conspiracy in between them or provocation by the 2nd accused to the 1st accused to remove the deceased from their way. However, the admission of
P.W.20 with regard to non-seizure of finger prints nor blood samples cannot be
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 32 Sessions Case 10/2024
said to be fatal to the case of prosecution for the reason that even by the time when the death of the deceased came to the light, there remained only ash of her. In such circumstances, the seizure or blood samples or finger prints is not possible.
28.7. P.W.20 though admitted that he obtained signature of the accused but did not note the date on the confession statement and mediators report. In view of the consistent and convincing evidence of P.W.1 with regard to the confession of the accused with regard to his complicity before P.W.1, the mere non-noting of the date underneath the signature of the 1st accused does not take away the case of prosecution. It might be true that Ex.P.3 and 4 do not show the deceased was getting on and getting down from the bike, but in view of the consistent evidence of P.W.4 as regards to going of deceased with the 1st accused, mere non-visibility of her in Exs.P.3 and P.4 does not cut the prosecution in its entirety. Furthermore, except suggesting by the learned
Counsel for the 1st accused to P.W.20 that Exs.P.3 and P.4 are fabricated, the accused did not make any attempt to get them examined by the Expert if really he felt that they were tampered or fabricated. Hence, this Court is of firm view that when the prosecution could able to prove Exs.P.3 and P.4, it is
for the accused to disprove the same, but he failed to do so, thereby this Court
is unable to convince with argument of the learned Counsel for the 1st accused in this dimension.
28.8. Even though P.W.20 admitted in his cross-examination that he did not mention the make colour of M.O.13/Bike, this Court did not find any seriousness in the said omission since the going of deceased on the bike was well-established by the prosecution through the evidence of P.W.4. P.W.20
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 33 Sessions Case 10/2024
further admitted that there was a prior complaint with regard to the disputes in between the 1st accused and the deceased. This part of admission goes in adverse to the case of the prosecution since even from suggestion, the 1st accused himself exposed the differences in between him and the deceased, which, in normal circumstances, drives even a common lane to raise a suspicion against the 1st accused to kill his wife.
28.9. P.W.20 admitted though admitted that he did not file the photographs of scene of offence, but asserted that he filed the Compact Disc (CD). This Court did not find any lacuna on the part of the prosecution in not filing the photographs when the CD to that extent is filed, further, it is also not the case of the 1st accused that the contents in the said Compact Disc did not show the place of offence, moreover, he made it clear that by the time, when he reached the place of offence, the Clues Team took the videographed the scene of offence. According to P.W.20, there are two scenes of offences and hence the burnt material was secured from the two places. P.W.20 admitted that the clues team did not mention the length of the hair and size of bangles in the report. May be said fact is true, but it does not alone sufficient to destroy the case of prosecution for the reason the accused failed to place any contra material that the said piece of hair and bangles do not pertain to the deceased.
28.10. Even though it could be elicited from P.W.20 that there is no mention in Exs.P.7 and P.12 as to who drafted the same. But, as discussed in preceding paragraphs, mere non mentioning the name of the author or scribe cannot be a sole ground to disbelieve these couple of documents since the contents prevail over the description of the Author, since the accused failed to
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 34 Sessions Case 10/2024
place any convincing material before the Court to show that the contents of these two documents are not correct. Thus, even though P.W.20 was put to a lengthy cross-examination by the learned Counsel for the 1st accused, nothing worthwhile could be eliciting fetching the case of the 1st accused, therefore, this Court has no hesitation to hold that through the evidence of P.W.20, the prosecution could able to prove the complicity of the 1st accused in commission of the offence.
28.11. During his cross-examination by the learned Counsel for the 2nd accused, P.W.20 admitted that in Ex.P.2, the name of the 2nd accused is inserted in between the gaps, this part of admission clearly emphasizes the innocence of the 2nd accused so also her inclusion in this case. Hence, basing on this admission of P.W.20 apart from the above discussion in preceding paragraphs as regards the role of the 2nd accused, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the 2nd accused is not at all responsible for the death of the deceased and it can be safely concluded that even through the evidence of
P.W.20, the prosecution failed to prove anything against the 2nd accused in the present crime.
29.The prosecution examined the learned Magistrate, who recorded 164, Cr.P.C. statements of witnesses as P.W.21, who stated that she is working as Junior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem and previously, she worked as Judicial
Magistrate of I Class, Kothavalasa from July, 2022 to April, 2023 and that the
Inspector of Police, Kothavalasa filed a memo for recording 164, Cr.P.C.
statements of P.Ws.3 to 8 and L.W.7/Jodu Narasimhulu, accordingly, she recorded the statements of P.Ws 3 to 8 and L.W.7/Jodu Narasimhulu. She further stated that P.W.3 stated before her that 1st accused is her relative’s son
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 35 Sessions Case 10/2024
and his wife Laxmi belongs to Therlam mandal and they performed your marriage eight years ago at Simhachalam when both of them loved each other and lived happily for three years and were blessed with a son/Yeswanth who is aged about 07 years, thereafter, 1st accused got acquaintance with the 2nd accused and thereafter 1st accused did not look after his wife and son and you used to demand her to give divorce and whenever she refused, the 1st accused used to beat her and the matter was placed in Police Station, but, there is no change and that on 29th January between 09:00 a.m and 10:00 a.m. the wife of the 1st accused was found missing and that on 30th January, complaint was given to police wherein 1st accused also signed and that she/P.W.3 got a doubt against the 1st accused and she told the same to Inspector of Police, after three days, the 1st accused confessed before P.W.1 that he took Laxmi to a cashew nut garden which is in Pedagoppu, beat her with a big stone and set her, fire by poring petrol 29.1. P.W.21 further stated that P.W.4 stated before her that the 1st accused loved Laxmi who belongs to Therlam mandal and they performed their marriage they had a boy and after the birth of their boy, they lived happily for few days, the 1st accused got acquaintance with Mounika/Accused
No.2 of you and demanded Laxmi to give divorce, when she refused the 1st accused used to harassed her by not providing food and when the matter was placed before the elders they also told the 1st accused to look after his wife and son and that when the 1st accused was taking Laxmi on a bike and later he/P.W.4 came to know that the Laxmi was found missing and he also came to know that a case was registered and he told to P.W.3 that day before the previous night, he saw the 1st accused took Laxmi on a bike and in the
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 36 Sessions Case 10/2024
meanwhile, the 1st accused also confessed before P.W.1 that he committed murder, by pouring petrol and later Police arrested him.
29.2. P.W.21 further stated that P.W.5 stated before her that 1st accused is his nearest relative, he was married 8 years ago 1st accused and his wife happily for few days, later, he got acquaintance with Mounika/Accused
No.2 of you and ever since, there were disputes between 1st accused and his wife and one day Accused No.2 went to house of the 1st accused and told that she was three month pregnant and that Laxmi refused for the same and the elders convinced them and send them, but no change and that the 1st accused tried to get rid of Laxmi and that he/P.W.5 found when the 1st accused took
Laxmi on 28th and that he got a doubt that why he was taking her, since they had no talking terms and later Laxmi was found missing and everyone got doubt on the 1st accused and later the 1st accused confessed before P.W.1 that he committed murder and burnt the body.
29.3. P.W.21 further stated that P.W.6 stated before her that on 28.01.2022, Laxmi was found missing and they thought she was somewhere and later on 31st, Mounika/Accused No.2 came to him and asked a doubt that what will be the punishment if someone committed murder and then he told that to his knowledge, it might be eight years and that she again asked him whether it is possible to come out, by paying amount, on that, he stated that it is possible if the offences are petty offences and then, she told that she called him to ask the said doubt and later, he/P.W.6 came to know that Laxmi died and the 1st accused murdered her.
29.4. P.W.21 further stated that that P.W.7 stated before her that the marriage 1st accused was performed with Laxmi about eight years back and
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 37 Sessions Case 10/2024
both of them lived happily for some and blessed with a son and after the birth of their son, the 1st accused told that he would marry Mounika/Accused No.2 and the 1st accused did not want Laxmi and also asked Laxmi to give divorce and when she refused, the 1st accused made allegations against her and that 10 days prior to her death, Laxmi came to her/P.W.7 with a curry and cried and she stated the 1st accused was following her up to her shop and she got a doubt on him and that on the night of 28th at about 07:00 p.m., the 1st accused took Laxmi from her shop on his bike and on 30th, the 1st accused came to her and told that Laxmi went away with a person, on that, she asked the 1st accused how she could go, by leaving her son and searched for her on surrounding places and after two hours, the 1st accused again came and told that Laxmi was in Sujatha Nagar and she went there on a bike of a person and after they gave complaint, the Police came and they took the 1st accused to Sujatha Nagar to enquiry, prior to that the 1st accused told the persons at
Sujatha Nagar to say lies to police, but, they recorded his conversation and sent the same to the president Ramulamma through Whatsapp and that the
President made her to listen the said conversation and that the 1st accused tried to say lies likewise and that the 2nd accused asked Rajesh what will be the punishment if someone committed murder, said Rajesh is her brother-in- law and he informed the same to her and P.W.3 and on that, they got suspicion and the 2nd accused demanded the 1st Accused through phone to marry her and same was informed to her by the 1st Accused and even though, she tried to convince him, but, he did not listen and that the 1st Accused committed murder on 28th night, by taking Laxmi to Pedda Goppu and he confessed the same before P.W.1.
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 38 Sessions Case 10/2024
29.5. P.W.21 further stated that P.W.8 stated before her that on 02.02.2022 her elder brother Naga Raju came to her house and asked her to tell that Laxmi came to her house along with a boy and also told that the
Laxmi was found missing and his villagers would she complaint against him and then she asked him how she could say when Laxmi did not come to her house and asked 1st Accused to call her husband, for which, the 1st Accused called her (P.W.8) husband through phone and also asked him to say that
Laxmi came to their house for which, her husband also asked the 1st Accused how could they say and he husband recorded the conversation and sent the same to P.W.3 and that two to three months prior to that day, Laxmi came to her house and she cried and told her that the 1st accused demanded her to give divorce and that after Laxmi went away, the 1st accused called her on suspicion and asked her whether Laxmi came to her house, on that, she scolded him, on that he stopped to talk to her and the 1st accused had illicit intimacy with another girl/Accused No.2 and that on 04.02.2022 she came to through P.W.3 that the Laxmi was died and she also came to know that the 1st accused murdered her. Exs.P.19 to P.24 are the 164, Cr.P.C. Statements
PW.3 to P.W.8.
29.6. During her cross-examination by the learned Counsel for the accused, she denied that the witnesses did not give statement before her voluntarily, except that nothing could be elicited from her cross-examination in support of the accused.
30.Thus, from the above evidence, when the prosecution could prove that the death of the deceased is a homicidal death, it has to be seen that how far the prosecution could able to establish that that the accused are
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 39 Sessions Case 10/2024
responsible for the death of the deceased. It was already discussed in the preceding paragraphs that the 2nd accused has no role in the crime and she is not responsible for the death of the deceased.
31.Admittedly, there is no direct witness to the offence and the entire case of prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence, where, the burden is heavily on the prosecution to establish the links. In the case on hand, admittedly, the prosecution did not examine the parents of the deceased, but examined the brother of the deceased, who clearly stated about the disputes in between the 1st accused and the deceased. The other witnesses examined by the prosecution also stated that the deceased used to report to them that the 1st accused was harassing her. Further, even from the evidence of P.W.20, it is clear that the deceased lodged a report against the 1st accused for harassing her. Thus, it is clear that there is strain relationship in between the 1st accused and the deceased, which amply establishes the ‘motive’ on the part of the 1st accused to get rid of the deceased.
31.Now, it has to be seen how far the prosecution could able to prove that the 1st accused killed the deceased. At the first instance, the 1st accused went to P.W.1 and made Extra Judicial Confession before him and P.W.1 along with his report surrendered the 1st accused before the Police Officials. As per the report of P.W.1, after making confession before him, the 1st accused took
P.W.1 to the scene of offence and showed the place where he burnt the deceased. Later, after surrendering the 1st accused before the Police, the 1st accused lead the Police and P.W.1 to the scene of offence, which clearly shows that the scene of offence is in exclusive knowledge of the accused, hence, it can
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 40 Sessions Case 10/2024
be clearly said that the first chain of circumstances was clearly established by the prosecution.
31.1. In this regard, the prosecution heavily relied on the evidence of
P.W.4, who stated that “… while I was at Kothavalasa car stand on road, leading to Vizianagaram, then A.1 came there on his Scooty and deceased came there and both went on scooty towards Vizianagaram”. This version of P.W.4 shows that the deceased lastly went along with the 1st accused, as such, the 1st accused is alone responsible to answer as to what happened to the deceased.
The learned Public Prosecutor while drawing the attention of this Court to ‘last seen theory’ submitted that the entire evidence of prosecution witnesses clearly shows that the 1st accused had disputes with the 1st accused and intended to remove her and thus he hatched up a plan to kill her and in execution of the same, he made the deceased to believe him and took her to the isolated place and killed her. In support of her contentions, the learned
Public Prosecutor relied on a judgment reported in State of Andhra
Pradesh Vs. Patchimala Vigneswarudu @ Viganna 1, wherein, it was observed that:
“(i) Admittedly, the deceased was the wife of the accused and they had strained relations.
(ii) …
(iii) …
(iv) The deceased and accused were last seen in the mid night (intervening night of 5.8.2001 and 6.8.2001) going together from cinema hall after night show, towards village Ayinavilli.
18. In our opinion, above chain of circumstances is complete and leads only to the conclusion that it was the accused/respondent and he alone, who committed the murder of the deceased.” 1 Criminal Appeal NO.436 of 2008, dt.06.01.2016 of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 41 Sessions Case 10/2024
The above judgment clearly shows that the accused and deceased were jointly last seen. The ratio in the above judgment aptly applied to the case on hand since, in the instant case, the 1st accused himself took P.W.1 to the scene of offence at the first instance and showed the same and the same is corroborated with his Extra Judicial Confession. Moreover, as per the evidence of P.W.4 when he was at Kothavalasa car stand, the 1st accused came there on his scooty and deceased also came there and both of them went on scooty towards Vizianagaram and thus, both the 1st accused and deceased were lastly seen by P.W.4 and as per the evidence of P.W.7, she and other villagers have seen the 1st accused and deceased in the CCTV footages and identified them-+, which amply proves that the accused took the deceased in the evening time and thereafter she was found missing and hence in view of the ratio laid down in the above case law, this Court has no hesitation to arrive at conclusion that the 1st accused alone committed the murder of the deceased and the prosecution could able to establish the chain of circumstances.
32.While cross-examining the Investigating Officers, the learned
Defence Counsels pointed out certain discrepancies. For which, the learned
Public Prosecutor submitted that even assuming for a while that there is discrepancy with regard to non-mentioning the names of the authors and non- noting of dates underneath the signatures, it does not cut the root of the prosecution case. In this context, it is apt to refer a judgment in Rajesh
Yadav and another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 2 wherein it was observed that:
2 Crl.Appeal 339, 340 of 2014, dt.04.02.2022 of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 42 Sessions Case 10/2024
“It is settled proposition of Law that even if there are some omissions, contradictions and discrepancies, the entire evidence cannot be disregarded. After exercising care and caution and sifting through the evidence to separate truth from untruth, exaggeration and improvements, the Court comes to a conclusion as to whether the residuary evidence is sufficient to convict the accused. Thus, undue importance should not be attached to omissions, contradictions and discrepancies, which do not go to the heart of the matter and shake the basic version of the prosecution’s witnesses. ”
Thus, in view of the ratio laid down in the above case even though there are certain discrepancies are there in the case of prosecution, in view of the other consistent and corroborative evidence available on record, this Court holds that those discrepancies are trivial in nature and they do not shake the case of prosecution from its root.
33.Now, coming to the role of the 2nd accused, the prosecution witnesses i.e. P.Ws.3 to 5 and 7 though asserted that the 2nd accused is behind the crime since both the accused are having illicit intimacy, but in their 161,
Cr.P.C. statements, which are marked as Exs.D.1 to D.4, they have stated differently, which disproves the contention of the prosecution that the 2nd accused connived in the offence and hence this Court is of considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove guilt of the 2nd accused.
34.As seen from the material, the accused were charged for the offence under Section 201 of IPC, but as seen from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, this Court did not find any sufficient material for the reason that the entire case of the prosecution rests on circumstances evidence and there is no ocular witness for the offence and also to say that the accused caused disappearance of evidence or giving false information to screen the offender, moreover, the 1st accused himself informed the commission of offence to P.W.1 and took him to the place of offence. Assuming for a while that the 1st accused
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 43 Sessions Case 10/2024
had such an ill-motive, he would have mislead P.W.1 and would have taken him to different place, but not to the exact crime scene. Thus, this Court is of firm view that the accused had no intention to cause disappearance, as such, the accused are not liable for the charge under Section 201 of IPC.
35.During arguments, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the because of the acts of the 1st accused, the son of the deceased lost the affection of his mother and became victim by the acts of the accused and hence they are entitled for victim compensation and relied on judgment reported in Shaik Ahamad Basha Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 3 wherein it was observed that:
“Section 357-A of Cr.P.C. was introduced by Act 5 of 2009 with the object of enabling the Court to direct the State to pay compensation to the victim where the compensation under Sections 357, Cr.P.C. is not adequate... ”
The learned Public Prosecutor also referred to copy of the Government Order of Andhra Pradesh State in G.O.Ms.No.43, Dt.15.04.2015. A perusal of the said G.O, at para No.7, procedure for grant of compensation is mentioned, under which, it is mentioned that “whenever a recommendation is made by the Court or on an application by any victim or his/her dependent under Sub
Section (2) of Section 357-A of the Act to the District Legal Services
Authority, the District Legal Services Authority shall examine the case and verify the contents of the claim with regard to the loss or injury caused to the victim arising out of the reported criminal activity and the District Legal
Services Authority, Vizianagaram may call for any other relevant information necessary in order to determine genuineness of the claims. After verifying the claim and on enquiry, shall award compensation, within two months, in 3 Criminal Appeal 930/2010 of Andhra High Court, dt.14.03.2016
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 44 Sessions Case 10/2024
accordance with the provisions of the Scheme. Considering the submissions of the learned Public Prosecutor so also in view of the ratio in Shaik Ahamad
Basha case (supra) and the G.O.Ms.No.43, Dt.15.04.2015, even though the accused was not found to be the guilt of the offence, but in view of admitted fact of death of deceased, which is a great peril to P.W.13/Yaswanth, this
Court is inclined to order for victim compensation to him. Even though the prosecution could not establish the guilt of the accused as discussed supra, but it does not a bar to award to Victim Compensation as enumerated in
Section 357-A of Cr.P.C., Accordingly, this point is answered. Accordingly, this point is answered.
32.In the result, the 1st accused is found not guilty for the charge under Section 201 of IPC and accordingly he is acquitted for the said charge, however, the 1st accused is found guilty for the charge under Section 302 of
IPC and accordingly he is convicted under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C. for the said charge. Whereas, the 2nd accused is found not guilty for the charges under Section 302 and 201 of IPC and accordingly, she is acquitted under
Section 235(1) for the said charges. The bail bonds of the 2nd accused, if any, shall stand canceled. The 2nd accused is directed to execute bond for her due appearance before the Hon’ble High Court in the event of appeal by the
Prosecution.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this 03 rd day of April, 2024.
Sd/- B.Sai Kalyan Chakravathi
Sessions Judge,
Vizianagaram 03.04.2025 (At bench):
The 1st accused is questioned with regard to quantum of sentence, he pleaded mercy. Hence, taking into consideration the gravity of offence and
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 45 Sessions Case 10/2024
nature of crime, the 1st accused is sentenced to imprisonment for life and also to pay fine of ₹.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only), in default of payment of fine, to suffer Simple Imprisonment for one month for the charge under
Section 302 of IPC. The remand period of the accused, if any, shall be given set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.,
M.O.13/Bike shall be returned subject to production of necessary documents and M.Os.1 to 12 and 14 to 16 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.
The 1st Accused is appraised of his right to appeal before the Hon’ble
High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi and free legal aid.
The son of the deceased i.e. P.W.13/Jodu Yaswanth, who is the victim, is at liberty to file an appropriate application before the District Legal
Services Authority, Vizianagaram, for grant of victim compensation under
Andhra Pradesh Victim Compensation Scheme, 2015 under Section 357-A of
Cr.P.C.,
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 03 rd day of April, 2024
Sd/- B.Sai Kalyan Chakravathi
Sessions Judge,
Vizianagaram.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For Prosecution: For Defence: P.W.1:Golla Venkata Raja Ravindra P.W.2:Pogasati Ganesh P.W.3:Jodu Ramulamma P.W.4:Chebrolu Siva P.W.5:Jodi Mutyala Rao P.W.6:Geethala Rajesh P.W.7:Geethala Devi P.W.8:Yesalapau Rani P.W.9:Sarapinti Eswara Rao
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 46 Sessions Case 10/2024
P.W.10:Bobbadi LakshmiNone P.W.11:Togara Sunitha P.W.12:G.Jagadeswara Rao, IT Core Team P.W.13:Jodu Yeswanth P.W.14:Chebrolu Mahesh P.W.15:Patnala Madhu, V.R.O., P.W.16:Dr.V.Koteswara Rao, Deputy Civil Surgeon. P.W.17::K.Geetha Madhuri, Assistant Director P.W.18::D.M.G.N.Prasada Rao, Tahsildar P.W.19::S.V.R.Raju, Inspector of Police P.W.20::S.Bala Surya Rao, Inspector of Police P.W.21: :S.Surya Kiran Sri, Junior Civil
Judge
Exhibits Marked For Prosecution: Ex.P.1:Report given by P.W.1 Ex.P.2:Extra judicial confession Ex.P.3:Compact Disc Ex.P.4:Compact Disc Ex.P.5:Relevant portion in confession statement Ex.P.6:Relevant portion in confession statement Ex.P.7:Mediators’ report Ex.P.8:Scene observation report Ex.P.9:161, Cr.P.C.Statement of P.W.6 Ex.P.10161, Cr.P.C.Statement of P.W.10 Ex.P.11Inquest panchanama Ex.P.12Mediators’ report
Ex.P.13R.F.S.L.Report Ex.P.14Letter Ex.P.15F.I.R. Ex.P.16Altered FIR Ex.P.17:D.N.A Report Ex.P.18Certificate for CCTV footage. Ex.P.19161, Cr.P.C.Statement of P.W.3 Ex.P.20161, Cr.P.C.Statement of P.W.4 Ex.P.21161, Cr.P.C.Statement of P.W.5 Ex.P.22161, Cr.P.C.Statement of P.W.6 Ex.P.23161, Cr.P.C.Statement of P.W.7 Ex.P.24161, Cr.P.C.Statement of P.W.8
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 47 Sessions Case 10/2024
For Accused:
Ex.D.1:Relevant portion in 161, Cr.P.C.Statement of P.W.3 Ex.D.2:Relevant portion in 161, Cr.P.C.Statement of P.W.4 Ex.D.3:Relevant portion in 161, Cr.P.C.Statement of P.W.5 Ex.D.4:Relevant portion in 161, Cr.P.C.Statement of P.W.7
Material Objects Marked
M.O.1: Bones pieces M.O.2: Metal Bangles M.O.3: Kalla Mattelu M.O.4: Burnt Kallu pattilu M.O.5: Ash at first scene of offence M.O.6: Half-burnt green cloth piece M.O.7: Half burnt hair M.O.8: Hair M.O.9: Three stone M.O.10: Small stones (kankara raallu) M.O.11: Ash packet M.O.12: Kankara matti M.O.13: Bike M.O.14: Pipe M.O.15: Bottle M.O.16: Match Box
Sd/- B.Sai Kalyan Chakravathi
Sessions Judge,
Vizianagaram
Copy to the Registrar (Judicial), Hon’ble High Court of A.P. (By way of C.D.) Copy to the Superintendent of Police, Vizianagaram and Director of Prosecution (through Public Prosecutor, Sessions Court, Vizianagaram) Copy to the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Vizianagarammaternal
Sessions Court, Vizianagaram 48 Sessions Case 10/2024
IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS JUDGE, VIZIANAGARAM
Present: Sri B.Sai Kalyan Chakravarthi,
Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram
Thursday, the 03rd day of April, 2025
Sessions Case No.10/2024
1 Nameof:Staterepresented bytheInspector of Police, Kothavalasa Police Station Complainant 2 Name of the Accused1. Jodu Naga Raju, S/o late Demudu, aged 33 years, ST Mannemdora by caste, Jodumeraka village, Appannadorapalem Panchayat, Kothavalasa Mandal.
2 Eeti Mounika, D/o late Beemraju, 23 years, ST Mannemdora by caste, rest ditto.
3Date of offence:28.01.2022
4.Place of offence:at Peda Goppu in Survey No.120 of Baligattam revenue village outskirts of Ardhannapalem village of Kothavalasa Mandal in an isolated area covered with deep bushes 5Date of complaint:04.02.2022 6Date of apprehension:24.04.2024 7Whether the Accused is in :On bail jail or bail 8Date of commencement of :16.07.2024 trial 9Date of close of trial:07.02.2025
10.Date of Sentence of :03.04.2025 Judgment
EXPLANATION FOR DELAY IN SESSIONS COURT:- After receipt of the record from Committal Court, the case was numbered as Sessions Case 08/2024. On 04.07.2024 charge framed and trial schedule was fixed and the Trial was started on 23.10.2024. P.Ws.1 to 21 were examined and Ex.P.1 to P.24 and Exs.D.1 to D.4 were marked and M.Os.1 to 16 were exhibited. The Accused is examined U/s 313 Cr.P.C on 29.11.2024 and 20.02.2025. Arguments heard finally on 25.03.2025. Judgment was pronounced on 03.04.2025, thus, there is no delay.
Sd/- B.Sai Kalyan Chakravathi i
Sessions Judge,
Vizianagaram
Order Record 1,855 total
| Case No. | Parties | Date | Type | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| OS/16/2018 | Manchukonda Sujatha vs Dachepalli Kanna Babu | 11 Apr 2025 | JUDGMENT | — |
| MVOP/58/2020 | Bunga Reethi @ Adilakshmi vs V.Satyanarayna | 10 Apr 2025 | Order | — |
| MVOP/59/2020 | Yendamuri Devi vs V.Satyanarayana | 10 Apr 2025 | Order | — |
| MVOP/74/2020 | Bunga Gurumurthy vs V.Satyanarayana | 10 Apr 2025 | Order | — |
| MVOP/100447/2019 | Challa Sai Kumr @ Sai vs V.Satyanarayna | 10 Apr 2025 | Order | — |
| EP/178/2024 | M/s. Shriram Finanace Limited vs Sudharani Managalagiri | 09 Apr 2025 | Order | — |
| CRLA/9/2021 | Mangipudi Prasad vs State of Andhra Pradesh represented by the Public Prosecutor, Vizianagaram | 09 Apr 2025 | Order | — |
| CRLA/51/2024 | Yendavilli Govinda Rao vs THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH | 09 Apr 2025 | Order | — |
| G.W.O.P/2/2023 | Boddu Suresh Kumar vs Boddu Venkata Lakshmi | 08 Apr 2025 | Order | — |
| DOP/14/2024 | Kantu Srinivasa Rao vs NIL | 08 Apr 2025 | Order | — |
| AS/52/2018 | Kalapureddi Satyavathi vs Kalapureddi Appalakondamma | 04 Apr 2025 | JUDGMENT | — |
| MVOP/152/2022 | Srikakula Venkatamma vs Penumatsa Raveendra Varma | 04 Apr 2025 | Order | — |
| MVOP/383/2022 | Kumili Vijaya Kumar vs Penumatsa Raveendra Varma | 04 Apr 2025 | Order | — |
| G.W.O.P/4/2024 | Rajanala Venkateswara Rao vs NIL | 04 Apr 2025 | Order | — |
| OS/68/2017 | Dindi Kanakaratnam vs Dindi Appparao | 03 Apr 2025 | JUDGMENT | — |
| CRLA/31/2023 | Udata Padmaja vs Gidijala Rama Rao | 03 Apr 2025 | Order | — |
| SC/10/2024 | State Represented by the Inspector of Police, Kothavalasa vs Jodu Nagaraju | 03 Apr 2025 | JUDGMENT | Acquitted |
| SC/68/2024 | Inspector of Police, Cheepurupalli Circle, Gurla Police Station vs Munakala Satyam | 03 Apr 2025 | JUDGMENT | Acquitted |
| A.R.B.O.P/2/2024 | National Highway Authority of India vs Arbitrator cum District Collector | 03 Apr 2025 | Order | — |
| EP/76/2018 | M/s. Shriram Transport Finanace Company Limited vs Kurakula Suresh | 02 Apr 2025 | Order | — |
| CRLRP/13/2022 | Dasari Mahesh vs Dasari Savithri | 01 Apr 2025 | Order | — |
| DOP/15/2024 | Sabbavarapu Devi vs NIL | 01 Apr 2025 | Order | — |
| AS/67/2018 | Ponde seetharatnam vs Bandhuchodi Ramamani | 28 Mar 2025 | JUDGMENT | — |
| CMA/2/2025 | Kadapa Adinarayana vs Patuvardanam Sharmila | 28 Mar 2025 | JUDGMENT | — |
| CMA/6/2022 | Karrothu Harish vs Boorle Somu Naidu | 28 Mar 2025 | JUDGMENT | — |
| CRLA/74/2024 | Suresh Burle vs The Civil Supplies Deputy Tahsildar, | 28 Mar 2025 | Order | — |
| CRLRP/12/2024 | Locharla Chandra Sekhar vs Locharla Jayalakshmi@Swarnalatha | 28 Mar 2025 | Order | — |
| T.R.O.P/11/2025 | Paluru Suryanarayana vs Randhi Poorna | 28 Mar 2025 | Order | — |
| T.R.O.P/14/2024 | Valipalli Satyanarayana vs Meesala Suryanarayana | 28 Mar 2025 | Order | — |
| CRLA/9/2023 | Pragaraju RadhaKrishna vs THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH | 27 Mar 2025 | Order | — |
| OS/18/2018 | Amballa Gowri Naidu vs Ippli Koteswara Rao | 25 Mar 2025 | Order | — |
| OS/26/2018 | Allam Govindarao vs Yelchuri Uma Shankar | 25 Mar 2025 | JUDGMENT | — |
| CRLRP/18/2023 | Mamidi Satyanaryana vs Mamidi Atchuthamba | 25 Mar 2025 | Order | — |
| SC/69/2024 | Inspector of Police, Bhogapuram Circle, Pusapatirega Police Station vs Sambapu Srinu | 25 Mar 2025 | JUDGMENT | — |
| A.R.B.O.P/2/2023 | National Highways Authority of India vs The Arbitrator Cum District Collector, Vizianagaram | 25 Mar 2025 | Order | — |
| A.R.B.O.P/3/2023 | National Highways Authority of India vs The Arbitrator Cum District Collector, Vizianagaram | 25 Mar 2025 | Order | — |
| A.R.B.O.P/3/2025 | National Highways Authority of India vs M/s. Kothavalasa Infraventures Pvt Ltd | 25 Mar 2025 | Order | — |
| EP/208/2024 | M/s. Shriram Finanace Limited vs Ragana Ramu | 24 Mar 2025 | Order | — |
| EP/212/2024 | M/s. Shriram Finanace Limited vs Laveti Eswara Rao | 24 Mar 2025 | Order | — |
| CRLA/10/2024 | Kammili Purnachandra Rao vs THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH | 24 Mar 2025 | Order | — |
| CRLA/30/2023 | Chennapragada Pavan Kumar vs Sirivuri Venkata Narasimha Raju | 24 Mar 2025 | Order | — |
| CRLRP/4/2023 | Sri Potnuru Venkata Manohar Gupta vs Potnuru Mehar Divakar | 24 Mar 2025 | Order | — |
| CRLRP/12/2023 | Yeduvaka Appalakonda vs Yeduvaka Demudamma | 24 Mar 2025 | Order | — |
| CRLRP/22/2022 | L.V.Srinivasa rao vs E.Srinivas | 24 Mar 2025 | Order | — |
| AS/6/2022 | Nischala Subrahmanya Sathya Venkata Kameswara Sanyasi Rao vs Tharra Kanakamahalakshmi | 21 Mar 2025 | JUDGMENT | — |
| AS/7/2022 | Nischala Subhrahmanya Sathya Venakta Kameswara Sanyasi Rao vs Antyakula Hanumantharao | 21 Mar 2025 | JUDGMENT | — |
| AS/8/2022 | Nischala Subhrahmanya Sathya Venakta Kameswara Sanyasi Rao vs Tharra Kanaka Lakshmi | 21 Mar 2025 | JUDGMENT | — |
| AS/9/2022 | Nischala Subhrahmanya Sathya Venakta Kameswara Sanyasi Rao vs Tharra Kanaka Lakshmi | 21 Mar 2025 | JUDGMENT | — |
| AS/10/2022 | Nischala Subhrahmanya Sathya Venakta Kameswara Sanyasi Rao vs Tharra Kanaka Lakshmi | 21 Mar 2025 | JUDGMENT | — |
| MVOP/283/2022 | Guntreddi Vardhan Naidu vs Seera Gowreeshu | 21 Mar 2025 | Order | — |
| CRLRP/2/2024 | Polamarasetty Satyam vs Polamarasetti Venkata Lakshmi | 21 Mar 2025 | Order | — |
| CRLRP/14/2023 | Kumili Rama Krishna vs Kumili Ramya Krishna | 21 Mar 2025 | Order | — |
| MVOP/222/2021 | Kotana Sanyasirao vs A. Sureedu | 19 Mar 2025 | Order | — |
| SC/81/2023 | State Representedby the Inspector foPolice,Vizianagaram vs Singampalli Thulasi | 19 Mar 2025 | JUDGMENT | — |
| CMA/2/2023 | Ramba Kannamnaidu vs Allu Rukmini | 18 Mar 2025 | JUDGMENT | — |
| T.R.O.P/28/2024 | Majji Appanna vs Majji Suryanarayana | 17 Mar 2025 | Order | — |
| T.R.O.P/2/2024 | Battula Sekhar vs Kalinga Vysya Komati Welfare Association | 13 Mar 2025 | Order | — |
| T.R.O.P/5/2025 | Saripalli Srinivas Rao vs Bugatha Tirumala Surya Kumar | 13 Mar 2025 | Order | — |
| T.R.O.P/6/2025 | Yerrothu Satya Rao vs Bugatha Tirumala Surya Kumar | 13 Mar 2025 | Order | — |
| G.W.O.P/13/2023 | Sunkari Papa Rao vs Sunkari(Volli) Usharani | 11 Mar 2025 | Order | — |
| T.R.O.P/13/2024 | Kutcherlapati Jaya Lakshmi vs Meka Anantha Lakshmi | 11 Mar 2025 | Order | — |
| EP/3/2023 | M/s. Shriram Transport Finanace Company Limited vs Ch.Suryanarayana | 08 Mar 2025 | Order | — |
| EP/12/2025 | M/s. Shriram Finanace Limited vs Palaka Arjunudu | 08 Mar 2025 | Order | — |
| EP/14/2025 | M/s. Shriram Finanace Limited vs Siddi Appa Rao | 08 Mar 2025 | Order | — |
| EP/15/2025 | M/s. Shriram Finanace Limited vs Venkatesh Thalada | 08 Mar 2025 | Order | — |
| EP/16/2025 | M/s. Shriram Finanace Limited vs Palaka Arjunudu | 08 Mar 2025 | Order | — |
| EP/18/2025 | M/s. Shriram Finanace Limited vs Yandamuri Ganapathi Rao | 08 Mar 2025 | Order | — |
| EP/20/2025 | M/s. Shriram Finanace Limited vs Taddi Chandrasekhar | 08 Mar 2025 | Order | — |
| EP/31/2022 | M/s. Shriram Transport Finanace Company Limited vs B Adi Babu | 08 Mar 2025 | Order | — |
| EP/31/2025 | Mudundi Ridhima vs Bangaru Srinivasa Rao | 08 Mar 2025 | Order | — |
| EP/42/2024 | M/s Shriram Finance Limited vs Naduturi Rajyalaxmi | 08 Mar 2025 | Order | — |
| EP/43/2024 | SRIRAM CITY UNION AND FINANCE vs Guntreddi Swaroop Kumar | 08 Mar 2025 | Order | — |
| EP/58/2020 | Shriram City Union finance Limited, rep. by its Divisional Manager- MD.Parvarish vs Batha Chandra Sekhar | 08 Mar 2025 | Order | — |
| EP/108/2024 | The Regional Manager, Agricultural Insurance Company of India, Arundelpet, Guntur vs Gollu Simhachalam | 08 Mar 2025 | Order | — |
| EP/110/2024 | The Regional Manager Agricultural insurance Company of india vs Lenka Ramu Naidu | 08 Mar 2025 | Order | — |
| EP/111/2024 | The Regional Manager, Agricultural Insurance Company of India, Arundelpet, Guntur vs Lenka Yellaiah | 08 Mar 2025 | Order | — |
| EP/112/2024 | The Regional Manager, Agricultural Insurance Company of India, Arundelpet, Guntur vs Gullipalli Prasad | 08 Mar 2025 | Order | — |
| EP/114/2020 | Shriram City Union Finanace Ltd rep by its Division Executive and POA vs Seedari Simhachalam | 08 Mar 2025 | Order | — |
| EP/120/2021 | M/s. Shriram Transport Finanace Company Limited vs K. Narayanarao | 08 Mar 2025 | Order | — |
| EP/141/2019 | M/s. Shriram Transport Finanace Company Limited vs Kancharla Sanyasi Rao | 08 Mar 2025 | Order | — |
| EP/159/2024 | Jagalinki Ramanamma vs Reddy Ramesh | 08 Mar 2025 | Order | — |
| EP/160/2024 | Pampana Naga Laxmi vs Reddy Ramesh | 08 Mar 2025 | Order | — |
| EP/161/2024 | Kanuri Paidithalli vs Reddy Ramesh | 08 Mar 2025 | Order | — |
| EP/163/2019 | M/s. Shriram Transport Finanace Company Limited vs Majji Suresh | 08 Mar 2025 | Order | — |
| EP/164/2022 | M/s. Shriram Transport Finanace Company Limited vs Sidagam Rama Rao | 08 Mar 2025 | Order | — |
| EP/166/2024 | M/s. Shriram Finanace Limited vs Mirja Shabuddin Beg | 08 Mar 2025 | Order | — |
| EP/168/2024 | M/s. Shriram Finanace Limited vs Bukka Srinivasa Rao | 08 Mar 2025 | Order | — |
| EP/169/2024 | M/s. Shriram Finanace Limited vs Bharatha Kumar Kotari | 08 Mar 2025 | Order | — |
| EP/177/2024 | M/s. Shriram Finanace Limited vs Eswara Rao Udana Rao | 08 Mar 2025 | Order | — |
| EP/203/2024 | M/s. Shriram Finanace Limited vs Basina Srinu | 08 Mar 2025 | Order | — |
| EP/209/2018 | Palaka Sunayana Grace vs Palaka Suresh | 08 Mar 2025 | Order | — |
| EP/213/2024 | M/s. Shriram Finanace Limited vs Bathula Ramu | 08 Mar 2025 | Order | — |
| EP/230/2022 | M/s. Shriram Transport Finanace Company Limited vs Ravuru Venkata Ramana | 08 Mar 2025 | Order | — |
| EP/263/2022 | M/s. Shriram Transport Finanace Company Limited vs Dasireddi Bujji | 08 Mar 2025 | Order | — |
| EP/268/2022 | M/s. Shriram Transport Finanace Company Limited vs Mopada Sathyanarayana | 08 Mar 2025 | Order | — |
| EP/274/2019 | M/s. Shriram Transport Finanace Company Limited vs MUgi Narayana Rao | 08 Mar 2025 | Order | — |
| EP/296/2019 | M/s. Shriram Transport Finanace Company Limited vs Mirthipati Srinivasa Rao | 08 Mar 2025 | Order | — |
| EP/312/2022 | M/s. Shriram Transport Finanace Company Limited vs Tempalli Lakshmi Narayana | 08 Mar 2025 | Order | — |
| EP/342/2021 | M/s. Shriram Transport Finanace Company Limited vs I. Sundararaju | 08 Mar 2025 | Order | — |
| EP/358/2021 | Shriram City Union Finance Limited vs Surya Narayana Yalagada | 08 Mar 2025 | Order | — |
Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)
| Apr 2025 | 154 | |
| Mar 2025 | 756 | |
| Feb 2025 | 161 | |
| Jan 2025 | 308 | |
| Dec 2024 | 525 | |
| Nov 2024 | 168 | |
| Oct 2024 | 133 | |
| Sep 2024 | 224 | |
| Aug 2024 | 27 | |
| Jul 2024 | 100 | |
| Jun 2024 | 325 | |
| May 2024 | 45 |
Log in for full trend data.
Frequently Asked Questions
How many cases has Sri B.Saikalyan Chakravarthi handled?
Sri B.Saikalyan Chakravarthi has handled 5609 court orders since 2021 at PDJ Court VIZIANAGARAM. The average disposal rate is 132 orders per month.
What types of cases does Sri B.Saikalyan Chakravarthi hear?
Based on available records, Sri B.Saikalyan Chakravarthi primarily handles Motor Accident matters (Motor Accident Claims) and Civil matters (Execution Petitions, Appeal Suits) and Criminal matters (Criminal Appeals) at PDJ Court VIZIANAGARAM.
Where is Sri B.Saikalyan Chakravarthi currently posted?
Sri B.Saikalyan Chakravarthi is posted as Prl. District Judge at PDJ Court VIZIANAGARAM, Vizianagaram, Andhra Pradesh.
Are judgments by Sri B.Saikalyan Chakravarthi available online?
Yes. 35 judgments by Sri B.Saikalyan Chakravarthi are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.
How fast does Sri B.Saikalyan Chakravarthi dispose cases?
Sri B.Saikalyan Chakravarthi disposes approximately 132 cases per month, based on 5609 orders handled over their tenure at PDJ Court VIZIANAGARAM.
Since when is Sri B.Saikalyan Chakravarthi serving?
Sri B.Saikalyan Chakravarthi has been serving at PDJ Court VIZIANAGARAM since 2021.
Case Types
Posting History
-
Sep 2024 — Apr 2025Prl. District Judge · 347 orders
-
Aug 2024 — Apr 2025Prl. District Judge · 349 orders
-
May 2024 — Apr 2025Prl. District Judge · 446 orders
-
Mar 2024 — Apr 2025Prl. District Judge · 510 orders
-
Feb 2024 — Apr 2025Prl. District Judge · 515 orders
-
Jan 2022 — Apr 2025Prl. District Judge · 1,570 orders
-
Oct 2021 — Apr 2025Prl. District Judge · 1,872 orders
Outcomes on Record
Other Judges at this Court