1
IN THE COURT OF JUDGE, FAMILY COURT CUM ADDL.
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT NIZAMABAD
PRESENT : Smt. C. Ratna Padmavathi,
Judge, Family Court Cum
Addl. Sessions Judge,Nizamabad
Dated on this 18th day of November, 2019
S.C.No. 216 of 2015
(PRC No. 10 of 2015 on the fle of the I Addl. JMFC, Nizamabad)
Committed byI Addl. JMFC, Nizamabad.
Cr.No.& PSCr.No.373 of 2014 PS Town-IV, Nizamabad.
1.Description of the Dasari Naveen S/o.Laxmanna age: 24 accusedyears, Caste: Padmashali, Occ: Cell Mechanic, Neela (v) of Ranjal (M), now at H.No.1-1-396/A,Yadagiribhag, Vinayaknagar, Nizamabad.
2. Charge Under section 302 IPC against accused.
3. Plea of theNot guilty accused
4. Finding of theAccused is found guilty for the ofence
Judgepunishable under section 302 IPC.
5. Sentence (or) orderConvicted the accused
6. Prosecution Addl.Public Prosecutor, Nizamabad conducted by
7. Accused defendedSri G.V. Krupakar Reddy, Advocate for byaccused.
This case is coming before me on 16-10-2019 for hearing and disposal in the presence of Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri G.V. Krupakar Reddy, Advocate for accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court makes the following:
2
J U D G M E N T
1. This case emerges out of the charge sheet that was fled by the Circle Inspector of Police, Nizamabad town in Cr.No.373 of 2014 for the ofence punishable under sec.302 IPC against the accused.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:
That the marriage of the daughter of LW1 by name “Saritha” was performed with the accused in the year 2012 and after the marriage, they lived happily for few days and later diferences arose in between them with regard to the illegal contacts and used to quarrel with one and another. On 19-12- 2014 LW1 i.e., mother of the deceased went to the house of her daughter upon her request and at that time the accused is quarreling with her daughter and beat her and she tried to convince but the accused sent LW1 from out of the house and thereafter he played the songs in his house with loud volume and though PW1 knocked the door repeatedly he has not opened the doors and at 12.00 mid night the house owner came to the portion and questioned for playing the songs with loud volume and then she stated that the spouses are quarreling each other and on that the house owner went inside his house and again on hearing the loud voices the house owner again came from his house and called the neighbour and also made 3 phone call to the Police Station and called the police and they together break open the window and also broke open the door and entered into the house and found that said “Saritha” was tied with Lungi and her throat was incised with a knife and lying in a pool of blood in the kitchen room and the accused tried to escape from there but all of them caught hold him and after recording the statement of LW1 and basing on the said statement the crime was registered by SI of Police i.e,. LW16 in
Cr.No.373/2014 for the ofence u/sec.302 IPC. After apprehending the accused on 20-12-2014 the CI of Police i.e.,
LW17 secured the presence of the panch witnesses i.e., LW12 and LW13 and in their presence recorded the confessional statement of the accused and also seized the blood stained shirt and pant from the possession of the accused under the cover of confession cum-recovery panchanama and later efected his arrest.
Then the CI of Police i.e., LW17 took up the investigation and he visited the scene of ofence and gave requisition to
Tahsildar Nizamabad to visit the scene of ofence and to conduct inquest over the dead body of the deceased. Thereupon the
Tahsildar i.e,. LW15 visited the scene of ofence and also conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of Lws 8 to 10. Whereas Lw17 conducted the scene of ofence panchanama in the presence of Lws 8 and 9 and seized the blood stained knife and other material objects at the scene and drawn rough sketch and also recorded the statements of 4
Lws.1 to 7. LW14 i.e., the doctor who conducted post mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased and issued
PME report. LW17 seized the blood stained clothes of the deceased in the presence of the panch witnesses i.e, LW10 and
LW11. LW18 i.e.,CI of Police, Nizamabad town sent the material objects to FSL and after completion of the investigation and after collecting the PME report and FSL report, he fled the charge sheet.
3. The case was taken on fle against accused for the ofence under Section 302 of IPC by the I Addl. Judicial First
Class Magistrate, Nizamabad and later the case was committed to the court of sessions on 11-09-2015. The case was made over to this Court for disposal according to law.
4. After hearing the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and also learned defence counsel, charge is framed under
Section 228 of Cr.PC for the ofence under section 302 IPC. The charge was read over and explained to the accused for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. During the course of trial, on behalf of prosecution PW-1 to PW16 are examined and Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-11 are marked and
MOs.1 to 16 are also marked on behalf of the prosecution.
5
6. After completion of the prosecution side evidence, the accused is examined under section. 313 Cr.PC for which he denied the incriminating evidence found against him and reported defence evidence. On behalf of the accused, Dw.1 is examined but no documents are marked.
7. Heard both sides.
8. Now the point that arises for determination
is as follows:
“Whether the prosecution has proved the
guilt of accused for the ofence punishable
under Section 302 of IPC beyond all
reasonable doubt ?”
9. POINT: The case of the prosecution is that on 20-12-2014 in the mid night the accused intentionally committed murder of his wife by name Dasari Saritha in their house by tying her hands and legs and by cutting her throat and also under lip with a knife and thereby committed the alleged ofence u/sec.302
IPC.
Therefore, it is for the prosecution to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt so as to bring home the guilt of the accused.
6
10. In support of the case of the prosecution, Pws 1 to 16 are examined and Exs.P1 to P11 are marked and MOs1 to 16 are also marked on behalf of the prosecution.
Among the said prosecution witnesses, PW1, PW3, PW4 and PW5 are the crucial witnesses in this case and their evidence is highly material in proving the guilt of the accused.
PW1 is the defacto complainant and the mother of the deceased. PW3, PW4 and PW5 are the independent witnesses.
So also the testimony of the doctor, who conducted the post mortem examination of the deceased i.e., PW9 is also material in bringing home the guilt of the accused.
11.In the case on hand, the plea of the accused is that he was not present in his house i.e., at the Scene of ofence as on the date of the incident and he was present elsewhere and has nothing to do with the alleged ofence. Therefore the accused has taken the “plea of alibi.”
However as it is alleged by the prosecution that the accused alleged to have cut the throat of his wife by name
Dasari Saritha with a knife and intentionally murdered her, the
burden is on the prosecution to prove that the accused
was present at the scene and has participated in crime.
The burden on the part of the prosecution would not be
lessened by the mere fact that the accused has taken the
7
defence of alibi. The said plea of the accused needs to be
considered after the discharge of the burden by the
prosecution in proving its case.
12.Now it is to be seen whether the presence of the accused at the scene of ofence and commission of ofence by the accused has been satisfactorily established by the prosecution by cogent, convincing and reliable evidence.
13. As per the case of the prosecution, the alleged ofence is committed in the rented house of the accused and the accused has pushed away PW1 i.e., the mother of deceased from out of the house and on that PW1 sat by the side of the door and later the accused has brutally murdered his wife by cutting her throat with a knife after tying her hands and legs and he was redhandedly caught hold by the police and also the neighbours and they took him to the Police Station.
14.Now the evidence on record is to be scrutinized and evaluated minutely and carefully to fnd out whether the testimony of the prosecution witnesses is reliable and trustworthy and is sufcient to bring out the complicity of the accused (or) not.
PW1, who is the mother of the deceased and defacto- complainant in this case categorically deposed that the marriage 8 of her daughter Saritha was performed with the accused in
December 2012 and they lived cordially for six months and thereafter the accused started suspecting her character by attributing illegal intimacy with others and they are issue less.
The testimony of PW1 further reveals that after return of the accused from Ajmir Durga on the said day, her daughter made
a phone call asking her to come to their house at
Yadagiri bagh and on that she went to the house at
about 7.30 p.m., and found both the spouses are
quarreling with one and another and she asked them not
to quarrel on that the accused pushed her out of the
house and closed the door. The accused started songs in the computer with high volume and did not open the door and on that PW1 sat at the door for about 2 hours. The testimony of
PW1 further reveals that on hearing the sounds the landlord also came there and he asked the accused to open the door but invain on that he went to the ground foor but as the accused
raised volume of the songs and started shouting, the
landlord again came there and asked the accused to
open the door but he did not open the same on which the
landlord called the neighbours and also made a phone
call to the police and on that the police came there and
broke open the window panes of the house and at that
time the accused thrown water outside through the
window and police broken open the doors by kicking the
doors and found that the legs and hands of the deceased
have been tied with a lungi and her lips and throat were
cut and she is lying in the pool of blood in the kitchen
9
and the accused tried to run away but he was caught
hold and he was taken to the IV Town Police Station,
Nizamabad.
PW1 further deposed that her statement was recorded and the accused killed her daughter by attributing illegal intimacy. Thus the said testimony of PW1 is in support of the contents in Ex.P.1 i.e., her statement on the basis of which crime was registered.
The said testimony of PW1 clearly reveals that the accused brutally killed his wife inside the house by tying her hands and legs with a lungi to avoid any kind of resistance by her and he was caught redhandedly by the police. Though PW1 is cross examined, but the entire cross examination of PW1 is a mere formal cross examination and it was also suggested to
PW1 that the accused was not present in the house on
the relevant date of the incident and Pw1 did not go to the house of the accused at that time but the same is denied by
PW1. PW1 with stood the test of cross examination and nothing material was elicited so as to impeach the credibility of her testimony.
15.To substantiate the prosecution case, the independent witnesses i.e., PW3 to PW5 were also examined by the prosecution.
10
PW3 is the house owner where the accused is residing as a tenant. On perusal of the testimony of PW3, his testimony is corroborating with the testimony of PW1 on the material aspects. His testimony clearly reveals that on 22-12-2014 during mid night he heard the noise of quarrel in between the
spouses and after some gap he again heard similar noise
and on that he called upon his neighbours by name
Chandra Mohan and Raj Mohan and went to the portion
of the accused and they knocked the door but the
accused did not open and on their information two police constables came there from the Police Station and they also knocked the door but the door was not opened then glass pane of the window was broken by one of the constable and the accused tried to throw water and pelt stone from inside through the window and the constables broke open the door by
kicking and they went inside and found the accused and
the wife of the accused was lying in the pool of blood and
her throat was slit and lying there. He further deposed
that PW1 was present there throughout the incident and the accused was quarreling with his wife suspecting her chastity and killed her for the said reason. Thus the testimony of PW3 is consistent in this regard and clearly revealed that the accused murdered his wife inside the house itself after quarreling with her.
11
So also the testimony of PW4, who is one of the police constable, who came to the spot on that day after receiving the information deposed on the same lines as that PW3 and his testimony also reveals that the accused was found inside the house and the deceased was found lying in a pool of blood in the kitchen and the accused was caught hold by them.
Even PW5, who is one of the neighbour of the accused deposed on the same lines as that PW3 corroborating the testimony of PW1 and PW3. Therefore the testimony of the said material witnesses is corroborating with one and another on the material aspects and except formal cross examination nothing material is elicited to disbelieve their testimony. So also nothing was suggested to PW3, PW4 and PW5 that there is any enmity (or) personal grudges in between them and the accused which tend them to depose falsehood against the accused. Thus there is no reason to disbelieve (or) discredit their testimony as their testimony remained unshattered even during the course of their cross examination.
The prosecution also examined PW2 who is the son of
PW1 and his testimony reveals that he came to know about the said incident through his mother as she informed him about the incident and deposed on the same lines as that PW1 as he was narrated about the incident by his mother i.e., PW1. However the testimony of above said crucial witnesses is in support of the prosecution case.
12
At this juncture, the evidence of the doctor i.e., PW9, who conducted the post mortem examination of the deceased is also material for consideration. On perusal of the testimony of
PW9 it clearly reveals that upon the requisition from the consent police, PW9 conducted PME over the dead body of the deceased and further reveals that both the hands of the deceased were tied together and tied at both ankle joints of Lower limbs. The
testimony of PW9 further reveals about the “anti mortem
injuries” that are found on the body of the deceased
which testifes the fact that the deceased was
manhandled prior to the occurrence of ofence.
PW9 further categorically deposed that the cause of
death was “cut throat injury” and the approximate time
of death was 10 to 16 hours prior to conducting of PME
and PME was conducted on 20-12-2015 from 11.15 a.m., to 12.50 p.m. and lends support to the prosecution case.
During the course of his cross examination, PW9 clearly deposed that he followed the scientifc method to ascertain the time of death but except denying the same, nothing was elicited in depth disputing the approximate time of death of the deceased by the learned defence counsel. Therefore testimony of PW9 and Ex.P6 PME report that is marked through him can be safely relied upon. Thus the testimony of PW9 and Ex.P6 PME 13 report further lends support to the testimony of PW1 and PW3 to PW5.
Thus the testimony of PW1 and PW3 to PW5 is trustworthy, reliable and inspires the confdence of the court and clearly establishes that on the date of incident, the accused and the deceased were present in their house and at the time of quarreling the accused closed the doors of the house from inside and raised the volume of songs so as to avoid others to hear the quarrel and as to what was happening inside their house. So also their testimony clearly establishes that the accused has cut the throat of his wife with a knife and murdered her inhumanly as no one else is present inside the house at that time except the accused and the deceased. Further the testimony of PW9 strengthens that prosecution case.
The prosecution also examined the panch witnesses to the scene of ofence and also the panch witnesses for the inquest as Pws.6 and 12 and also PW 7 and PW11.
Though PW6 turned hostile, who is the one of the panch witness to the scene of ofence and inquest but however PW12, who is another panch witness for the scene of ofence and inquest have supported the prosecution case and categorically deposed that 3 years ago, PW6 and PW12 are called upon by the police to upstairs portion of the building at Vinayaknagar,
Nizamabad i.e., the scene of ofence and about conducting of 14 the scene of ofence panchanama and about the seizure of MO.8 to 14 i.e,. blood stained knife, blood stained door mat, blood stained Kerchief, blood stained cotton, pair of earthen lamps, a plate (burnt), four compact disc and Ex.P8 which is the CDF along with the rough sketch is marked through him. PW12 also deposed that inquest was conducted over the dead body of the deceased in their presence under Ex.P.2 Inquest panchanama.
The Tahsildar who conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased is examined as PW13 and he deposed about conducting of inquest over the dead body of the deceased under
Ex.P.2 and nothing is elicited from out of the cross examination of PW12 and PW13, so as to discard his evidence. Therefore the fact that PW6 turned hostile is of no consequence and is not going to efect the credibility of the prosecution case in view of the evidence of PW12.
So also PW7, who is the one of the panch witness for the inquest and also for the seizure of clothes of the deceased though turned hostile in part in respect of the seizure of clothes of the deceased but during the course of cross examination by the learned Addl. P.P. she admitted the seizure of the clothes of the deceased i.e., Mos.1 to 6 in their presence under Ex.P.4 seizure panchanama.
Whereas PW11 who is another panch witness in this regard supported the prosecution case and she categorically deposed about the seizure of the clothes of the deceased i.e,.
15
Mo.1 to 6 and also Mo.7 in their presence under the cover of seizure panchanama i.e., Ex.P.4. Thus the testimony of PW.7,
PW11 and PW12 are in support of the prosecution case and proves the seizure of the material objects including the clothes of the deceased I.e,. MO.1 to 7 and also MO. 8 to 14.
Though the panch witness to the confession cum seizure panchanama of accused under which the blood stained clothes of the accused were seized, who are examined as PW8 and
PW10 turned hostile, but however it is not going to efect the prosecution case as the testimony of PW1 and PW3 to PW5 is in support of the prosecution case and further supported by the testimony of PW9 which is sufcient to bring out the complicity of the accused.
16.The prosecution also examined the investigating ofcers as PW14 to P.16. Among them, PW14 is SI of police, who issued
F.I.R. under Ex.P.9 and his testimony reveals about the issuing of
F.I.R. in crime no.373 of 2014 upon the statement of PW1 which was recorded by him. Whereas PW15 (CI of Police incharge of
Nizamabad town) and PW16 (CI of Police, Nizamabad town) categorically deposed about the investigation that is conducted by them and Ex.P10 i.e., Admissible portion of the panchanama under which the blood stained clothes of the accused i.e., MO.15 and 16 are seized is marked through PW15. Whereas the FSL report is marked through PW16. While cross examining, PW15 it was suggested that one K.Raja Mohan, who is the immediate 16 neighbour of the accused stated that the accused was not present at that relevant time in his portion of house and that some unknown ofender has committed the ofence but the same is denied by PW15. Thus the testimony of PW15 and PW16 lend support to the prosecution case. Therefore the evidence of the above said prosecution witnesses amply proves that the accused was present in the house i.e., at the scene of ofence and brutally murdered his wife by cutting her throat with a knife and he was caught redhandedly in the house i.e., at the Scene of ofence itself. Therefore there is no hesitation to hold that the prosecution succeeded in proving its case against the accused.
Now it is for the accused to prove his plea of alibi which is relevant as per Sec.11 of the Evidence Act, 1872 and as per sec.103 of the Evidence Act, 1872 the burden is heavy upon the accused to prove the same.
17.Now it is to be seen whether the accused has established (or) proved his “plea of alibi” and proved that he was elsewhere at the time of alleged ofence and not present at the scene of ofence.
18.The “plea of alibi” was explained by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case Dudh Nath Pande Vs. State of
U.P. (1981) (2) S.C.C. 166 by observing that 17
The plea of alibi postulates the physical
impossibility of the presence of the accused at
the scene of ofence by reason of his presence
at another place. The plea can therefore
succeed only if it is shown that the accused
was so far away at the relevant time that he
could not be present at the place where the
crime was committed.”
Therefore it is for the accused to prove his plea of alibi with absolute certainty so as exclude the possibility of his presence at the place of occurrence. Therefore strict proof is required to establish the “plea of alibi” which has been reafrmed in the cases reported in 2014 Criminal Law
Journal 1936 (Jumni Vs. State of Harayana).
19.In the case on hand, in support of his “plea of alibi”, the accused did not choose to examine himself as a witness to substantiate his plea, but he examined his friend as Dw1, but the testimony of Dw1 is noway helpful to the accused to prove that he was elsewhere at the time of alleged ofence and not present in his house i.e., at the scene of ofence. The accused did not choose to examine himself as a defence witness by entering into the witness box and in the absence of the evidence of the accused as a defence witness in support of his plea of alibi, the testimony of any other witness like Dw1 serves no 18 purpose. Thus, there is no hesitation to hold that the accused failed to prove his “plea of alibi”.
Whereas the evidence of the prosecution witnesses i.e.,
PW1 and PW3 to PW5 clearly establishes that the crime has been committed by the accused and no one else. It is pertinent to note that it is not at all the contention of the defence that any other person is also present in the house of the accused on the date of alleged incident. Therefore, on the date of alleged ofence only the accused and his wife are in their house and the doors of the house were closed by the accused. Though while cross examining PW1 and while cross examining the investigation ofcer i.e., PW15 it was suggested that one Baba was called upon to the house of the accused by the deceased for worship in order to get children, but the same is denied by PW1 and PW15 also denied that he apprehended the said Baba.
Therefore the said plea of the accused is without any basis and is devoid of any evidence in that regard. Therefore the plea of the accused cannot be accepted.
20.Thus for the foregoing reasons there is no hesitation to hold that the prosecution succeeded in bringing home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence the accused is liable for penal consequences.
As this is a case of murder i.e., loss of life of the victim by name Saritha (deceased) and as her mother by name 19
M.Susheela (PW1) has lost her daughter (of young age) i.e.,
Saritha as a result of crime, it is just and proper to
recommend for payment of compensation to the
dependent of the victim (deceased) i.e., her mother
(PW1) by invoking sec.357-A of Cr.PC. to facilitate her to
get compensation under Telangana Victim Compensation
Scheme, 2015 as per G.O.M.s.No.9 Law (LA, LA&J-Home-
Courts.B) Department, dated 7-3-2015.
Typed to my dictation to the Typist, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open Court on this 18th day of
November, 2019.
sd /-
Judge, Family Court-cum-
Addl. Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.
21.When accused is questioned about the quantum of sentence he stated as follows:- “That my parents are no more and pleaded mercy to take a lenient view in imposing the sentence.”
22. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is not a ft case to invoke the beneft under section 360 Cr.PC (or) under the Probation of Ofenders Act.
23. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and the nature of ofence, the accused does not deserve any sympathy of this court in sentencing him. No doubt that the crime is 20 “abhorrent” but the crime committed by the accused does not come under the purview of “rarest of rare case.” Hence it is just and proper to impose the alternative sentence that is prescribed under law to meet the ends of justice.
24. In the result, the accused is found guilty for the ofence under section 302 IPC and is convicted in terms of section 235 (2) Cr.PC and sentenced to undergo Life imprisonment and also to pay fne of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fne amount shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. Both the main sentence and default sentence shall run concurrently.
The period of remand undergone by Accused if any ordered to be set of in terms of section 428 of Cr.PC. (i.e. from 21-12-2014 to 19-3-2015).
MOs.1 to 16 are ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal period.
The accused is apprised of his right to prefer an appeal against this judgment, and also to avail the facility of legal aid counsel to prefer the appeal if he so desires.
As this court recommended for payment of
compensation to the dependent of the victim (deceased,
who have no issues), i.e.,her mother by name
21
M. Susheela (PW1) for loss of life of the victim by invoking
sec.357-A Cr.PC. under Telangana Victim Compensation
Scheme, 2015, the ofce is directed to address a letter to
the District Legal Services Authority, Nizamabad along
with copy of judgment to take necessary steps in this
regard and to award just and reasonable (or) appropriate
compensation to the dependent of the victim as stated
above as per the schedule [para 7 (8)] of Telangana
Victim Compensation Scheme, 2015 and in accordance
with the provisions of the said scheme.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this 18th day of November, 2019.
sd /-
Judge, Family Court-cum-
Addl. District & Sessions judge, Nizamabad
Witnesses examined
For Prosecution: PW-1M. Susheela (Mother of the deceased)
PW-2M.Suman (Elder bother of the deceased)
PW-3Lingala Raja Shekar goud (Witness and House owner of the accused)
PW-4M.Srinivas (Circumstantial Witness)
PW-5B.Chandra Mohan (Circumstantial Witness)
PW-6K.Ashok (Panch witness for scene of ofence and inquest)
PW-7S. Uma (Panch for the inquest and seizure of clothes of the deceased) 22
PW-8M.A. Rafeeq (panch for confession and recovery of clothes of the accused)
PW-9Dr.R.Sridhara Chary (Asst. Civil Surgeon, Nizamabad who conducted
PME over the dead body of the deceased)
PW-10M.A. Basheer (Panch for confession and recovery of clothes of accused)
PW-11M.Jyothi (Panch for seized clothes of the deceased)
PW-12R. Yadagiri Goud (Panch for scene of ofence and Inquest)
PW-13G. Rajendhar (Tahsildar, Nizamabad who conducted inquest)
PW-14J.Naresh (SI of Police, Town-IV, Nizamabad who issued FIR)
PW-15G. Venkateshwar Rao (I.O.)
PW-16N.Yadaiah (I.O.)
For Defence
DW-1 Bonkanpally Madari
EXHIBITS MARKED
For Prosecution:
Ex.P1:Statement of PW1 dated 20-12-2014
Ex.P2:Inquest panchanama
Ex.P3:Signature of PW7 on Seizure panchanama
Ex.P4:Seizure panchanama
Ex.P5: Signature of PW8 on confession and seizure panchanama
Ex.P6:PME report, dated 20-12-2014 23
Ex.P7:Signature of PW10 on confession and seizure panchanama
Ex.P8:Crime Detail Form containing the rough sketch map of the scene of ofence.
Ex.P9:FIR
Ex.P10:Admissible portion of the seizure panchanama
Ex.P11:FSL report, dated 19-3-2015
For Defence
Ex.D1 Sec.161 Cr.PC statement portion of PW1
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED
MO.1 White coloured blood stained Kurtha
MO.2 Blood stained Maroon colour Pizama
MO.3 Blood stained black colour petticoat
MO.4 Drawer
MO.5 Blood stained ash colour sweater
MO.6 A set of two pieces of blood stained Lungi
MO.7 Blood stained bra of the deceased
MO.8 Blood stained knife
MO.9 Blood stained door mat
MO.10 Blood stained Kerchief
MO.11 Blood stained cotton
MO.12 A pair of earthen lamps
MO.13 A plate (burnt)
MO.14 A set of 4 compact discs
sd /-
Judge, Family Court-cum-
Addl. District & Sessions judge, Nizamabad 24
CALENDAR
IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE AT
NIZAMABAD
PRESENT : Smt. Ratna Padmavathi,
Judge, Family Court Cum
Addl. Sessions Judge,Nizamabad
Dated on this 18th day of November, 2019
S.C.No. 216 of 2015
(PRC No. 10 of 2015 on the fle of the I Addl. JMFC, Nizamabad)
BETWEEN: The State through Circle Inspector of Police, Nizamabad …. Complainant AND Dasri Naveen, S/o Laxmanna, aged 24 years, caste: Padmashali, occ: Cell Mechanic, Neela village of Renjal mandal, Now at h.No.1-1-396/A, yadagiri Bhag, Vinayaknagar, Nizamabad. ….Accused
1. Date of ofence : 19-12-2014
2. Date of complaint/report : 20-12-2014
3. Date of apprehension of accused : 20-12-2014
4. Date of commitment : 11-09-2015
5. Date of commencement of trial : 20-03-2018
6. Date of closure of trial : 03-07-2018
7. Date of sentence or order : 18-01-2019
8. Charge : U/S 302 of IPC
9. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty.
10. Finding of Judge : Accused is found guilty
11. Sentence or order :
In the result, the accused is found guilty for the ofence under section 302 IPC and is convicted in terms of section 235 (2) Cr.PC and sentenced to undergo Life imprisonment and also to pay fne of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fne amount shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. Both the
main sentence and default sentence shall run concurrently.
25
The period of remand undergone by Accused if any ordered to be set of in terms of section 428 of Cr.PC. (i.e. from 21-12-2014 to 19-3-2015).
MOs.1 to 16 are ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal period.
Judge
Family Court-cum- Addl.Dist.& Sessions Court To Nizamabad. The Registrar (Judl.),
Hon’ble High Court of Telangana,
Hyderabad.