1
IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE –
Cum – SPL. JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF OFFENCES AGAINST WOMEN,
ANANTAPURAMU
Present: Smt B.Sunita
IV Addl., District and Sessions Judge – Cum – Spl. Judge for Trial of Offences Against Women, Anantapuramu.
Tuesday, this the 12th day of April, 2022.
SESSIONS CASE No.207/2018
(On committal by the addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ananthapuramu , P.R.C.20/2018 in Cr.No.146/2017 of Ananthapuramu IV Town PS.,)
1.Name of the :Inspector of Police, Ananthapuramu ComplainantIV Town Police Station.
2.Name of the Police :Ananthapuramu IV Town Police Station and Cr.NoStation in Cr.No.146/2017.
3. Name of the A1 to A3: 1. Surya Ravi Prakash Rao, aged 38(A1) years, S/o. Siva Shankar Rao.
2. Surya Siva Sankar Rao, aged 66(A2) years, S/o. S.Sreenivasarao Rao,
3. Surya Aruna Bai, aged 58 years,(A3) W/o. S.Siva Sankar Rao. (All are residents of D.No.3-673, Somanatha Nagar, Ananthapuramu Town).
4.Offence:U/s.498-A, 302, 201 r/w 34 of IPC.,
5.Plea of A1 to A3:Found guilty
The above Sessions case came on for final hearing before me on 07.04.2022 in the presence of Spl. Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri K. Siddaiah and Sri B.Mallikarjuna Reddy, Advocates for A1 to A3, after hearing the arguments and perusing the material papers on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-
J U D G M E N T
Inspector of police, Ananthapuramu IV Town Police Station filed a charge sheet against A1 to A3 in Cr.No.146/2017 for the offences punishable U/S.
498-A, 302, 201 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code of Ananthapuramu IV Town
Police Station.
2
1.Brief case of prosecution as per charge sheet is that, deceased
Jyothi Manohari is third daughter of Lw1 – Mohithe Manohar Rao and Lw2 –
Mohith Kasturu Bai. Her marriage was solemnized in the year 2011 with A1, who was working as a SGT Teacher in MPP School, Jallipalli Village, Kuderu
Mandal. Lw12 – S. Srivastav is son of deceased and aged about five years.
Since marriage A1 to A3 used to pick-up quarrel with deceased stating that, she was not looking after their daughters properly and hence harassed her physically and mentally. Deceased informed said fact to her parents over phone. Deceased also suspected that, A1 to A3 may kill her at any time to perform second marriage to A1. Lw1 and Lw2 used to console her stating that, they will came to Ananthapuramu and talk to her in-laws.
While so, on 04.09.2017 at about 7.00 am., Lw6 – D.Shareefa came and cleaned the house of deceased and accused, went to the house of one
Sai Leela stating that, she will return after completing her work. A1 to A3 quarreled with deceased and that A1 beat deceased on the back of her head with an axe and caused bleeding injuries. A1 to A3 strangulated deceased with chunny to create scene as suicidal death. Lw12 – S.Srivastav witnessed entire incident. At about 7.45 am., Lw6 – D. Shareefa returned to the house of accused and heard cries. Immediately she rushed into the house of accused and found dead body on the cot in pool of blood. A1 to A3 and
Lw12 were present. A1 hurriedly went away from back door. Meantime,
Lw7 – R. Chandra Sekhar, Lw8 – R. Sujatha and Lw9 – R. Ramaiah came.
On the same day at 8.00 am., A1 made a phone call to Lw3 – Y.
Nirmala Bai informed that deceased quarreled with him on the previous night and committed suicide by hanging. He further stated that, he was going to school. Immediately Lw3 – Y. Nirmala Bai and Lw5 – Y.Nagender Rao 3 visited the house of accused and found A1 to A3 were not present in the house, whereas deceased was on bed in pool of blood and Lw12 was weeping by the side of deceased. When they tried to wake-up deceased, there was no response from her. Hence, immediately they shifted injured to
Chandra Hospital, Ananthapuramu in auto, where doctor declared dead. By 9.00 am., Lw3 - Y.Nirmala Bai made a phone call to Lw4 – M. Kalyan Kumar and informed him about the incident and in turn Lw4 to his father Lw1 about said incident and they all reached Ananthapuramu and found dead body of deceased where dead body was lying.
On 04.09.2017 at 4.30 pm., Lw1 came to Ananthapuramu IV Town
Police Station and lodged a written complaint, basing on which Lw21 –
Inspector of Police, IV Town Police Station, Ananthapuramu registered a case in Cr.No. 146/2017 U/S.498-A, 302, 201 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and submitted copies of First Information Report to concerned. During investigation, he sent requisition to Mandal Executive Magistrate to conduct inquest over the dead body of deceased, as she died within seven years of her marriage. Thereafter, he secured presence of Lw1 – M. Manohar Rao,
Lw2 – M. Kasturi Bai, Lw3 – Y. Nirmala Bai, Lw4 – M. Kalyan Kumar and Lw5 –
Y. Nagender Rao examined and recorded their statements.
He also visited scene of offence which is house of accused at
Somanath Nagar, Ananthapuramu and inspected scene of offence in the presence of Lw13 – R. Rama Lakshmi and Lw14 – K. Venkata Prasad at 7.00 pm and seized blood stained bed sheet, blood stained chunny and two blood stained towels under cover of mahazarnama. He also prepared rough sketch of the scene and got the scene photographed. He secured presence of Lw6 – D. Shareefa, Lw7 – R. Chandra Sekhar, Lw8 – R.Sujatha and 4
Lw9 – R. Ramaiah examined and recorded their statements. On 05.09.2017 morning Lw21 – Inspector of police, Ananthapuramu IV Town Police Station visited mortuary at Government General Hospital, Ananthapuramu along with staff. At about 7.00 am., Lw17 – Tahasildar, Ananthapuramu came to mortuary room, secured presence of Lw15 – S. Madhusudhana Rao/ blood relatives of deceased and Lw13 – R. Rama Lakshmi, Lw14 – K. Venkata
Prasad, Lw15 – S. Madhusudhana Rao and Lw16 – V. Muneendra inquest panchayatdars and conducted inquest over the dead body of deceased.
Thereafter, by 10.00 am., dead body was forwarded for autopsy.
On 07.09.2017 at 2.30 pm., on credible information about the accused, A1 and A2, Lw1 secured presence of Lw13 – R. Ramalakshmi and
Lw14 – K. Venkata Prasad proceeded to Anjaneyaswamy Temple Cross Road,
Near Somaladoddi Village, Ananathapuramu Rural Mandal in police jeeps bearing No. AP-18-P-1251 & AP-9P-7551, apprehended A1 and A2 near temple and on enquiry they voluntarily disclosed their identity and admitted the guilt.
Basing on the confession of A1 and A2, Lw21 – Inspector of Police, IV
Town Police Station, Ananthapuramu proceeded to the house of accused along with mediators and other staff. A1 went into the house and brought axe and produced before Lw21 and the same was seized under cover of mahazarnama in the presence of mediators. After observing formalities A1 and A2 were remanded to judicial custody. On 07.09.2017 A3 surrendered
before the court and sent for judicial custody. On 08.09.2017 Lw21 visited
MPP School, Jallipalli and secured presence of Lw11 – B.Rohini examined and recorded her statement. She handed over leave letter of A1 to Lw21 and it was seized under cover of police proceedings. Then, he returned to police 5 station, secured presence of Lw12, who was living with Lw2 – M. Kasthuri Bai and recorded her statement. Seized material objects were sent to RFSL.
After receipt of all records, charge sheet was filed against the accused.
2.After filing of charge sheet before Addl. Judicial Magistrate of
First Class, Ananthapuramu, case was numbered as P.R.C.20/2018 and
copies of documents were furnished to A1 to A3 as required U/s 207 Cr.P.C.
Since the case is exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, case records were sent to the District and sessions Court, Anantapuramu for disposal according to law as per provision of Sec.209 Cr.P.C. In turn the District and
sessions Court, Anantapuramu numbered the case as S.C.No. 207/2018 and
made over to I Addl. District Judge, Ananthapuramu for disposal according to
Law.
3.This court received case bundle as per orders of Hon’ble Prl.
District and Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu in Dis.No.1466/2019/OP-Cell, dt.9.4.2019 for disposal according to law.
4.On receipt of case records and on appearance of A1 to A3,
Charge U/s.498-A, 302 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code framed against A1 to A3.
The charge was read over and explained to A1 to A3 in Telugu for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5.To prove case of prosecution, PW.1 to PW.14 are examined and
Ex.P1 to Ex.P14 and Mo.1 to Mo.5 are marked. Defence adduced no evidence. Written arguments filed on behalf of both sides along with judgments for reference.
6. Heard both sides.
7.Now the point for determination is whether prosecution is able to establish the guilt of A1 to A3 for the charges framed against them for the 6 offences punishable U/S 498-A, 302 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code as mentioned supra beyond all reasonable doubt ?
8.Case of prosecution is that, deceased Jyothi Manohari is wife of
A1 and their marriage was performed in the year 2011 by giving 10 thulas of gold and Rs.2,00,000/- cash as dowry. They got one son, aged about five years and he is examined as Pw8. Since marriage A2 and A3 harassed deceased demanding additional dowry and threatened her that, if she will not bring additional dowry, they will perform second marriage to A1. On 03.09.2017 at about 10.30 am., deceased contacted Pw1, who is her father and informed that, accused harassed her by demanding additional dowry and also threatened to perform second marriage to A1, if she fails to get
additional dowry. Pw1 also stated that, now and then they have given some
amounts. Deceased also informed Pw1 on 03-09-2017 that, accused were beating her and that, he convinced his daughter stating that, he would visit her and talk to her in-laws. Same is stated by Pw2 and Pw3. But on 04.09.20417 at about 9.00 am, he received telephonic information from
Pw2, who is his eldest daughter, stating that, his daughter is found in a pool of blood on bed at her home and that, herself and her husband shifted deceased to Chandra Hospital, Ananthapuramu in an auto with the help of neighbours. Pw2 informed him that, there was hacked injury on the back of head and also other injuries and that around the neck, there is black colour mark. Immediately, after deceased was shifted to Chandra Hospital,
Ananthapuramu, doctors declared her dead.
9.On receiving information from Pw2, Pw1 along with his son / Pw3 and other relatives immediately rushed to Ananthapuramu and reached by 2.30 pm and directly went to Government General Hospital, 7
Ananthapuramu, where he found dead body of his daughter in mortuary. By 4.30 pm, he lodged police complaint against the accused in IV Town Police
Station and Ex.P1 is said complaint.
10.A perusal of complaint reveals that, in 2011 marriage of deceased was performed with A1 and they got five years old son/Pw8. Since marriage, there were quarrels between both sides, stating that, deceased was not looking after her sisters-in-law properly. A2 and A3 quarreled in that connection with her and they were supported by A1. Said fact were informed by deceased several times, but Pw1 convinced and sent her. On 04.09.2017 at about 9.00 am., when he was at Bangalore, his son informed him stating that, his daughter Jyothi Manohari is found in pool of blood in her house and Pw2 shifted her to Chandra Hospital for treatment in an auto and there she died while undergoing treatment. On enquiry he came to know that A1 to A3 caused injury on the head of deceased, due to which, she died.
Immediately, he along with his other family members went and found dead body in mortuary room of Government General Hospital, Ananthapuramu and observed that, there was a injury on the back of head and around the neck, there is a ligature mark. Therefore he was of opinion that, A1 to A3 hacked her with sharped weapon on the back of head of deceased and tried to create that, she committed suicide by hanging.
11.Immediately, after lodging complaint, on the next day inquest was held over the dead body of deceased and Pw12 – Tahasildar, conducted inquest over the dead body of deceased. A perusal of inquest report marked as Ex.P5, shows that, there was one Sharifa, who is servant-maid in the house of deceased saw all the accused and deceased on 04.09.2017 at 7.00 am alive for the last time, but for the reasons best known to prosecution 8 said Sharifa is not examined, though she is shown as Lw6 as per charge sheet. Column No.15 of inquest report reveals cause of death and it shows contents as that of complaint. There is no allegation that, the accused harassed her for want of additional dowry. Infact, at the time of inquest, father, brother, brother-in-law, mother, sister of deceased were present, but none of them stated about demanding of additional dowry before the
Tahasildar, who is examined as Pw12.
12.A perusal of evidence of Pw12, who is Tahasildar and conducted inquest over the dead body of deceased by name Jyothi Manohari on 05.09.2017 at about 7.00 am, at Government General Hospital,
Ananthapuramu reveals that, there was grevious injury on the back of head.
During his cross-examination it is elicited that, he examined the witnesses on 04.09.2017 itself as per statements available before this court. He went to the house of deceased on 04.09.2017 at 6.00 pm and Inspector of Police and others were present at that time. A1 was also present in his house, but not his parents. In his presence Inspector of Police examined scene of offence. By the time he went to Government General Hospital,
Ananthapuramu, inspector of police and witnesses were present and for the first time he saw witnesses at Government General Hospital,
Ananthapuramu. He further deposed that, none of the witnesses whom he examined stated that accused demanded additional dowry. Pw1 to Pw3 did not inform before the Tahasildar that, accused demanded additional dowry and so also that Pw1 has not stated before him that, he gave Rs.2,00,000/- cash and 10 thulas of gold as dowry at the time of marriage.
13.Similarly, when we look at the evidence of Pw13, who is
Investigating Officer in this case, during cross-examination it is elicited that, 9
Pw1 to Pw3 have not stated before him that, they paid Rs.2,00,000/- cash and 10 thulas of gold as dowry at the time of marriage and subsequently accused demanded additional dowry and that, for want of additional dowry accused harassed deceased.
14.Therefore a perusal of available evidence as discussed above including that of father, brother, sister of deceased who are examined as
Pw1 to Pw3, they have not stated before police or Tahasildar and so also in complaint that, accused demanded additional dowry. Only allegation made against accused is that, they quarreled with deceased as she was not taking care of the sisters of A1. Therefore, the reason as alleged by prosecution witnesses is different from their earlier version.
15.In this case according to Pw7, who also worked along with A1 as teacher and traveled along with A1 according to prosecution in same bus at relevant time, on 04.09.2017 at about 8.50 or 8.55 am., when herself and
A1 got down from same bus, A1 received a phone call stating that, his wife committed suicide and he informed said fact to her and when she asked him to go home, he came to school, handed over leave letter before going home and on the next day she saw news item. During her cross-examination it is elicited that, accused travelled form Ananthapuramu to Jellipalli and on that day she started at her house in Ananthapuramu by 7.40 am., or 8.00 am and that there are buses for every 15 minutes and it is a busy route. By 9.00 am., they have to report at school. She was the first person on that day to go to school as her head-master was on leave. The distance between bus stop and the school is about five minutes walk. Children already came to school by the time she came to school.
10
16.But when we look at the evidence of Pw2, who is sister of deceased and also received phone call from A1, she deposed that on 04.09.2017 at about 8.00 am, A1 called her over phone and informed that, deceased hanged herself and that, he was going to school and that it is time for his school and so saying, he disconnected the phone. Then immediately, herself, Lw5 who is her husband rushed to the house of deceased and found her in pool of blood in bed room. Her son was crying and nobody was present in the house. She also observed ligature marks around the neck and also injury to right hand wrist portion and blood stained injury on the back of right side. Therefore, she along with her husband and neighbours shifted injured in an auto to Chandra Hospital, Ananthapuramu along with her son and informed her father and brother. But, after admission in hospital, the doctors declared her dead. According to her evidence before this court, cause of death was for want of additional dowry. Infact, Pw1 to Pw3 were present when inquest was held over the dead body of Jyothi Manohari, but none of them stated that, for want of additional dowry Jyothi Manohari was murdered by accused. Therefore, though Pw2 and Pw3 coupled with Pw1 deposed that, on 03.09.2017 deceased called Pw1 over phone at 10.30 am., and informed him that, accused harassed deceased for want of additional dowry, since the same is not their earlier version either before Tahsildar or
Police, the reason for alleged incident is to be viewed with suspicion.
17.A perusal of entire evidence go to show that, from 2011 to till 03-09-2017, no panchayats were held regarding demand of alleged
additional dowry or regarding any other disputes between both sides as per
available evidence. Pw1 to Pw3 unanimously gave only one date i.e., 03.09.2017 stating that, at about 10.30 am., deceased informed Pw1 about 11 demanding of additional dowry and that Pw1 promised to visit her house within a few days and informed the same to Pw2 stating that he would be visiting her house before going to talk with accused, but meanwhile on 04.09.2017 she was found dead.
18.At this juncture it is relevant to consider cross-examination of
Pw1, who is father of deceased, that, there were no big disputes between A1 and deceased. He voluntarily stated that, there were quarrels between his daughter, A2 and A3. In fact Pw2 also deposed that during last year for the birthday of Pw8, she went to the house of accused and that they performed
Satyanarayana Vratam and that, this year, Pw8 was brought by his parents to her house on his birthday and gave chocolates to her.
19.Therefore, as per available evidence as discussed above, it is clear that there were no disputes between deceased and accused. In this case according to Pw1 to Pw3 by 9.00 am, Pw2 informed about the incident to Pw1 and Pw3, but for the reasons best known to her, she has not lodged any complaint relating to incident and waited till Pw1 came and lodged complaint at 4.30 pm on the same day and the reason for delay is not explained. Pw1 also did not enquire Pw2, whether either herself or her husband / Lw5 lodged any complaint about the incident. Pw1 also did not lodge complaint immediately after coming to know about the incident and so also after coming to Ananthapuramu. Though it is suggested to Pw1 that,
A1 lodged police compliant with out-post police in Government General
Hospital, Ananthapuramu, there is no record before this court.
20.At this juncture it is relevant to look into cross-examination of
Pw13, who investigated into this crime. According to Pw13, the 12 investigating officer, till receipt of complaint, he had no information about the offence. But he voluntarily deposed that, by 9.00 am or 10.00 am., on 04.09.2017 he received information about the incident and therefore he visited scene by 11.30 am and posted police constable to guard the scene as there was none at the scene. He knows that, victim was first shifted to
Chandra Hospital, when she was alive and after her death was confirmed, complaint was lodged. Only after complaint was lodged, he visited Chandra
Hospital. But he has not examined doctors, who treated deceased Jyothi
Manohari at Chandra Hospital and so also he has not sent police constable to Government General Hospital, Ananthapuramu where dead body was kept and by 4.00 pm, he received death intimation from Government
General Hospital, Ananthapuramu.
21.Therefore, this evidence of Pw13 coupled with evidence of Pw1 go to show that, police had information about the incident even prior to receiving complaint from Pw1. But for the reasons best known to them they have not registered any case against anyone, till receipt of complaint in writing from Pw1. Further, immediately on coming to know about the incident, no effort was made by Pw1 to Pw3 to lodge complaint and so also no effort was made by Pw13 to register the crime till receipt of complaint from Pw1 inspite of having information creates a doubt about manner of incident.
22.At this juncture it is relevant to consider evidence of Pw8 who is son of deceased and A1 as according to prosecution Pw8 is only eye witness to incident. His statement was recorded by Learned Magistrate, who is examined as Pw14 U/S.164 Cr.P.C Statement. When Pw8 came to court to give evidence the boy stated that, the accused scolded his mother and A1 13 beat his mother from behind her mother with a stick that has blade and blood oozing out. Thereafter, his mother fell on the floor and accused tightened her neck with her chunny and after she died they escaped by cleaning room. Neighbours came and saw dead body and left. After half an hour Pw2 and Pw5 came and shifted his mother to hospital. Police examined him four days later and the Magistrate examined him 1 ½ months later.
During his cross-examination it is elicited that, he was examined by police at the house of Pw2. Pw2 and Lw5 shifted deceased to hospital and he is residing with his grand-parents after the death of his mother. Pw3 who is his maternal uncle took him to the Magistrate, when his statement was recorded. He deposed that he did not state before police and Magistrate that, stick had iron blade, so also that, the accused tightened chunny around the neck of his mother and that, blood was cleaned by accused. At relevant time he was studying LKG and used to go to school in van. He does not remember for how many times, he was brought from Bangalore to give his evidence in this case. Earlier he had love and affection towards his father but not now. First when his mother was taken to Chandra Hospital,
Ananthapuramu by Pw2 and Lw5 along with his mother he also went. He does not know for how many hours he was at that hospital and so also he does not remember whether, Pw2 and Lw5 have brought police to Chandra
Hospital, but he denied the suggestion that, basing on the information given by Pw2 and Pw3, he is giving evidence.
23.When we look at the evidence of Pw14 who recorded Sec.164
Cr.P.C Statement of Pw8, the witness/Pw8 stated before him that, during morning hours, accused beat his mother with a stick on the back of her head and also on her chin in the presence of himself. According to Pw14, witness stated that, he voluntarily gave his statement and he recorded statement of 14
Pw8 in the presence of Pw3. During cross-examination of Pw14 it is elicited that, the witnesses was studying LKG as per records. Witness was questioned by him in Telugu and he answered in Telugu language. It took about twenty minutes to record his statement. Date and time of offence is not stated by the witnesses.
24.Therefore a perusal of evidence of Pw8 coupled with evidence of
Pw14 go to show that, the boy does not remember as to what happened for the reason that, he stated that, he does not remember for how many times he was brought to court from Bangalore to give evidence, when he is aged about 8 years and that to just a few days prior to his giving evidence. He was brought to court before giving evidence several times. So also that, he does not remember whether police came when deceased was brought to
Chandra Hospital by Pw2 and Lw5. There is a discrepancy regarding weapon used for commission of offence before this court and before Pw14. Further his statement was recorded by the investigating officer four days after incident and the reason for delay is not explained in giving his statement.
Since in this case, the witness also came to court on several occasions, but did not give evidence also go to show that, he was more prone to tutoring during his young age. Further he was residing at Bangalore with his grandparents and Pw3, who accompanied him several times to court along with Pw2.
25.Learned advocate for accused relied on judgment between (1)
Arbind Singh Vs. State of Bihar, reported in 1994 Crl.L.J. 1227, (2) Radhey
Shyam vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2014 0 Supreme (SC) 147 wherein it was observed that, conviction based only on the basis of evidence of child aged about 5 years cannot be believed without corroboration, as there is a 15 possibility of tutoring. He also relied on judgments between Digamber
Vaishnav and another Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, reported in 2019 (w) ALT (Crl.) 104 SC and Radhey Shyam Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2014 0
Supreme (SC) 147 wherein our Hon’ble Apex court observed that, evidence of child witness must be evaluated carefully, as he is more prone for tutoring and adequate caution is necessary.
26.At this juncture learned Spl.P.P relied on judgment between Louis
Vs. State of M.P reported in 1983 0 Supreme (MP) 368 and Mirajul Islam
Sheik Vs. State of Kerala reported in 2018 1 Crimes (HC) 830 wherein it was observed that, all the persons shall be competent to justify unless the court considers that they are prevented from giving evidence. As per Sec.118 of
Indian Evidence Act, a child is competent witness. Further U/S. 134 and 112 of Evidence Act sole testimony of a child witness can form basis for conviction, provided it has corroboration. But, in this case, evidence of a child witness shows several improvements from that of his earlier statement before Pw14 and Pw13. In addition as rightly contended by learned advocate for defence, there is a gap of four days for examining Pw8 by police and 1 ½ months gap for recording his statement by Pw14.
Therefore, it creates a doubt whether the statement made by Pw8 is voluntarily or not even at first instance. In addition at the time of incident he was only four years old and hence for so many days whether he remembered the incident is also doubtful. Non seizing of his blood stained clothes also is in support of case of defence.
27.Both sides also relied on Sec.106 of Indian Evidence Act to prove their respective contentions. Learned advocate for accused argued that, accused were very much present and they did not run away after the incident. It is A1 who paid bills in Chandra Hospital, but the same are not 16 marked before the court. In addition, there is no evidence to show, who paid bills for treatment of deceased at Chandra Hospital. Pw5-Tahasildar in his cross-examination deposed that, on 04.09.2017 when he went to the house of accused, at that time police were present and also A1 was in the house though not A2 and A3. Therefore, A1 absconding after the incident does not arise.
28.During evidence of Pw13 he deposed that, he arrested A1 and
A2 on 07.09.2017 at 3.30 pm, near Anjiney Swamy Temple, Somuladoddi.
A3 herself surrendered before the court. Pw9 is the VRO and he was present when A1 and A2 were arrested on 07.09.2017. However, he was also present as punch witnesses to inquest also and when police visited the house of deceased. During his cross-examination it is elicited that, owner of the house of accused was not present when he along with police and others went and as it was locked, police opened the door, but he does not know from where key was brought. Parents of accused were not present at the house. Evidence of Pw9 coupled with evidence of Pw13 also go to show that, A1 and A2 were arrested on 07.09.2017 and not on 04.09.2017 though
A1 was very much present in the house as per evidence of Pw12.
29.Infact, Pw4 and Pw5 are residing in downstairs, whereas accused were residing in upstairs. According to them by 7.30 am., on hearing cries from upstairs, they both went and found deceased lying on bed, thereafter they came down. But according to Pw5 all the accused were present, when they went to up-stairs. Pw4 did not state about presence of accused when he went to upstairs.
30.During 313 Cr.P.C. examination, A2 stated that, he has taken
Pw8 to school and by the time he returned, it was about 09-00 am and his 17 house door was locked. On enquiry in the downstairs, he came to know that, deceased received injury to her head and was shifted to Chandra
Hospital and hence he also went there. It is suggested to Pw8 that on that day he went to school, which he denied vehemently. Further at this juncture since as per available evidence except one allegation regarding accused demanding additional dowry on 03.09.2017 and not prior to that is made against the accused, regarding allegations of demanding additional dowry is doubtful.
31.Learned advocate for accused relied on judgment between
Amujuri Balaraju Vs, State of AP rep.by its PP, High Court of AP, Hyderabad, reported in 2020 (1) ALT (Crl.) 297 (DB)(AP) wherein it was held that, when once presence of accused in the house itself is disputed, recovery of button of shirt at the scene which is the house in which he was living, would not be material circumstance. Further when witness during his cross-examination turned hostile though supported case of prosecution in his chief examination, he cannot he classified as a trustworthy witness.
32. He also relied on another judgment between Shivaji Chintappa
Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2021 (2) ALT (Crl.) 44 SC wherein it was held that, primary burden to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt is on prosecution and as per Sec.106 of Evidence Act, it does not absolve prosecution of discharging his primary burden of proving prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt. In case of circumstantial evidence, motive places an important link to complete the chain of prosecution. Merely on the basis of suspicion conviction is not sustainable.
33.In this case earliest version of prosecution is that, deceased was harassed for not looking the sisters of A1 properly. But, when they came to 18 give evidence, totally changed their version and converted into demand for
additional dowry for which accused murdered deceased. Hence, the same is
not reliable.
34.Per contra learned Spl P.P relied on judgment between Bhatu Vs.
State of maharashtra, reported in 2020 0 Supreme (Bom) 790 and State of
Rajasthan Vs. Kashi Ram reported in 2006 0 Supreme (SC) 692 and argued that, when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him and failure to explain itself will provide additional link in the chain of circumstances proved against the accused.
35.Regarding presence of Pw8 at relevant time by the side of his mother who was in pool of blood is considered doubtful for the reason that if the child is by the side of his mother, who was in pool of blood, definitely his clothes should have drenched in blood. Non-seizure of blood stained clothes of Pw8 is a missing link in this case. Further non-examination of Pw8 on the very same day or on the next day when Pw1 to Pw3 were examined along with other blood relatives, non showing name of Pw8 as eye witness in inquest report is also a missing link.
36.In State of Rajasthan Vs. Kashi Ram, reported in 2006 0 Supreme (SC) 1058 wherein it was held that, under section 106 Evidence Act, when a fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, burden of providing that fact is upon him. If a person is last seen in the company of deceased, he must offer an explanation as to how and when he parted the company of deceased. Failure to explain itself shall provide an additional link in chain of circumstances proved against the accused.
19
37.Therefore with the discussion made above, since in this case as there is no connection with the allegations made in complaint and inquest report against the accused to the allegations made against the accused in evidence and further since, Pw8 though is contended to be sole eye witness is not shown as eye witness as per inquest report and so also not examined for more than four days after incident, coupled with Pw8 coming to court along with Pw2 and Pw3 several times and finally gave evidence after a long gap, it go to show that, he is a tutored witness and hence his evidence is not totally reliable for want of corroboration. Further non seizure of blood stained clothes of Pw8 is a missing link in the chain. In addition, application of provision of section 106 of Indian Evidence Act comes into play only when prosecution has completely established the links in the chain, which it has failed to prove as discussed above. Delay in lodging complaint is also a missing link in present case, as no explanation is given for delay in lodging complaint. Hence benefit of doubt is given to the accused.
38.In the result, A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offences punishable U/S.498-A, 302 r/w 34 of IPC and hence acquitted U/S 235 (1)
Cr.PC. Bail bonds of A1 to A3 shall stand canceled six months after pronouncing this judgment as per provisions of Sec.437-(A) Cr.P.C. The marked and unmarked property, except valuables if any, shall be destroyed after appeal time is over. Valuables if any shall be confiscated to state. Send case property to lower court for disposal according to law.
Dictated to personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open court this the 12th day of April, 2022.
Sd/-B.Sunita
IV.Addl. Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu.
20
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined for Prosecution: Defense: PW1: M. Manohar Rao - Nil - PW2: Nirmala Bai PW3: Kalyan Kumar PW4: Chandra Sekhar PW5: Sujatha PW6: A. Jeelan Basha PW7: Rohini PW8: Srivasthav PW9: K. Venkata Prasad PW10 : Dr. Neeraja PW11 : Dr. T.Sai Sudheer PW12 : K. Anwar Hussain PW13 : P. Shyama Rao Pw14: A. Thowsheed Hussain
Exhibits marked for prosecution
Ex.P1: Complaint given by Pw1 Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C Statement of Lw7 Chandra Sekhar Ex.P3: 161 Cr.P.C Statement of Lw8 Sujatha Ex.P4: Seizure mahazarnama Ex.P5: Inquest report Ex.P6: Admissible portion of confession mahazarnama Ex.P7: Seizure mahazarnama Ex.P8: Postmortem Report Ex.P9: Final opinion Ex.P10: Express First Information Report Ex.P11: Rough sketch of the scene Ex.P12: Thirteen Positive Photographs Ex.P13: Seizure mahazarnama dt.07.09.2017 at 7.30 pm., at D.No.3/673 at Somnath Nagar, Ananthapuramu. Ex.P14: Sec.164 Cr.P.C. Statement of Pw8
Exhibits marked for defence - Nil - 21
Material Objects marked for prosecution
Mo.1: Blue colour top with yellow colour pant Mo.2: Blue and yellow colour chunny Mo.3: Pink colour blood stained bed sheet Mo.4: Axe Mo.5: Two towels
Sd/- B. Sunita
IV A.S.J-cum-Spl.Judge.
22
TABULAR FORM TO BE ANNEXURED TO THE JUDGMENT AS
REQUIRED UNDER RULE 67 OF THE Cr.P.C.
IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS DIVISION OF ANANTAPURAMU :: AT ANANTAPURAMU
PRESENT: Smt B.Sunita , IV Addl., District & Sessions Judge – Cum - Spl. Judge for Trial of Offences Against Women. Anantapuramu.
SESSIONS CASE No.207/2018
Tuesday, this the 12th day of April, 2022.
1.Name of the Police Station & :Inspector of Police, Cr.No.Ananthapuramu IV Town 4Police Station in Cr.No.146/2017.
2. Name of the A1 to A3: 1. Surya Ravi Prakash Rao, aged(A1) 38 years, S/o. Siva Shankar Rao.
2. Surya Siva Sankar Rao, aged(A2) 66 years, S/o. S.Sreenivasarao Rao,
3. Surya Aruna Bai, aged 58(A3) years, W/o. S.Siva Sankar Rao. (All are residents of D.No.3- 673,SomanathaNagar, Ananthapuramu Town).
3.Date of Offence:04.09.2017
4.Date of Complaint:04.09.2017
5.Date of apprehension of A1 to A307.09.2017
6.Date of releaseA1 released on 08.12.2017. A2 and A3 released on 24.11.2017
7.Date of committal16.04.2018
8.Date of commencement of trial03.12.2019
9.Date of close of trial31.03.2022 10 Sentence of Order date12.04.2022
Explanation of the duration of the case in the committal court.
This case was taken on file U/S 498-A, 302, 201 r/w 34 of IPC,
Ananthapuramu IV Town Police Station and the case was committed to the
Sessions Division, Ananthapuramu after completion of all formalities.
EXPLANATION OF THE DURATION OF THE CASE IN SESSIONS COURT:
This case was transferred to IV Addl., Sessions Judge – Cum - Spl. Judge for Trial of Offences Against Women on 09.04.2019. Charges are framed on 02.07.2019 and the trial of the case was commenced on 03.12.2019 and 23 closed on 31.03.2022. A1 to A3 are examined. Arguments heard on 31.03.2022and the judgment pronounced on 12.04.2022.
In the result, A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offences punishable
U/S.498-A, 302 r/w 34 of IPC and hence acquitted U/S 235 (1) Cr.PC. Bail bonds of A1 to A3 shall stand canceled six months after pronouncing this judgment as per provisions of Sec.437-(A) Cr.P.C. The marked and unmarked property, except valuables if any, shall be destroyed after appeal time is over. Valuables if any shall be confiscated to state. Send case property to lower court for disposal according to law.
Sd/- B. Sunita
IV.Addl. Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu.
To
1. The District Superintendent of Police, Ananthapuramu.
2. The Committal Court.