1
IN THE COURT OF IX ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE:
KRISHNA: MACHILIPATNAM.
PRESENT: SRI CH. MADHAVARAO,
IX ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,
KRISHNA, MACHILIPATNAM.
Wednesday, this the 24th day of July, 2019.
SESSIONS CASE No. 93/2016
(P.R.C.No.45/2015 on the file of Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Avanigadda, in Crime No.40/2015 of Challapalli P.S)
Name of the Complainant:State, rep., by the Inspector of Police, Challapalli Police Station.
Name of the Accused:Nuzampatnam Gopala Krishna, S/o Saibabu, 23 years, Kummari, D.No.8-32-231, Isukapalli Village, Repalle Mandal, Gunturu District.
Charges:U/s. 302, 404 I.P.C.
Plea of the accused:Pleaded not guilty
Period of detention:13.08.2015 to 04.12.2015
Finding of the Court:Found not guilty
Sentence or Order:Acquitted
Prosecution conducted by:Sri K. Radha Krishna, Addl. Public Prosecutor, IX Addl. District & Sessions Court, Machilipatnam.
Accused defended by :Sri A.Satyanarayana, Advocate, Machilipatnam.
This Sessions case is coming on18.07.2019 for final hearing
before me in the presence of Sri K. Radha Krishna, Addl. Public
Prosecutor, for the state-complainant, and of Sri A.Satyanarayana, Advocate for accused; and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:
2
// J U D G M E N T //
1. This is a Sessions Case arose from P.R.C.No. 45/2015 on the file of Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Avanigadda and the said
P.R.C arose from F.I.R. in Crime No.40/2015 of Challapalli Police
Station.
2.After filing of charge-sheet, the learned Magistrate concerned had committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Krishna
Division, Machilipatnam in the said P.R.C., by passing a Committal
Order dt.04.03.2016. Before committal of the case, learned Magistrate concerned, furnished copies of material papers to the Accused herein, as per S.207 Cr.P.C.
3.Court of Sessions, Krishna Division, Machilipatnam, after committal, numbered the case as S.C.No.93/2016 against the Accused herein and made over the same to this Court for disposal according to law.
4.Accused is on bail and on receipt of summons issued by this Court, Accused made his appearance before this Court and engaged Sri A.Satyanarayana, Advocate to defend his case.
5. On appearance of the accused, charges for the offences under Sections 302, 404 I.P.C has been framed against the accused and the said charges were read over and explained to him in Telugu.
He pleaded not guilty and claimed that the case to be tried against him.
6.During the trial, Pws.1 to 21 were examined and Exs.P.1 to
P.25 were marked on behalf of the prosecution. M.Os.1 to 7 were marked. None were examined and no document was marked on behalf of the Accused.
3
7.After closure of prosecution side evidence, accused was examined U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. He denied the incriminating evidence available on record against him and reported no defence side evidence.
8. The Inspector of Police Challapalli Police Station filed the charge sheet in Cr.No.40/2015 u/s.302 & 404 IPC. The facts of the charge sheet in brief are –
(i) The accused is a resident of D.No.8-32-231, Isukapalli
Village, Repalle Mandal, Gunturu District. The deceased Mummasani
Surya Kumari alias Rekha is resident of Korukonda Village of
Rajanagaram Mandal, East Godavari District. The PW.1/complainant is the V.R.O., Nadakuduru Village, Challapalli Mandal.
(ii) The deceased got 3 children i.e. PW.3, PW.4 and LW.4
Mummasani Nagendra Babu and PW.2 is her husband and the marriage of PW.4 performed with PW.5 and she is residing in
Campbelpet of Machilipatnam. The deceased used to visit PW.4 house at lease once in a month. The accused is aged about 23 years had a lover by name Santhi of their village and he is in deep lover with her and his co-worker PW.9 got illicit contact with the deceased and on one day, PW.9 went to Eluru Bus stand on a bike ridden by the accused as he doesn’t know bike riding and at Eluru Bus Stand PW.9 introduced the accused to the deceased, since then the deceased started talking with the accused and developed illicit contact with him and kept PW.9 aside and both were used to talk over cell phone regularly, now and then met at any place to fulfill their lust.
Iii) Since few months the deceased started harassing the accused to marry her, so that they may go any where and enjoy their life by fulfilling their lust and the accused denied her plea stating that he is going to marry his lover. But the deceased started blackmailing him that she will go to his village and inform about their affair to his parents and to his lover Santhi and accused pleaded the deceased 4 many times to discard him and not to spoil his life but she paid deaf ear and continued her harassment demanding him to marry her, on that the accused vexed with her behaviour, decided to cut his illicit contacts with her by eliminating her and according to his plan, on 11.02.2015 he went to Korukonda to persuade the deceased to leave him and met her at the house of PW.14 and there the deceased pressed him to fulfill her lust and the accused denied her plea and prayed to leave him so that he will marry his lover to lead happy marital life and on that the deceased asked him to come with her to Annavaram, then he went to
Annavaram with her, in that night stayed in the Hotel Raghavendra
Residency of PW.8 situated at the Annavaram Hill toll gate and there they participated in sexual act and after that the accused again requested her to discard him and she paid deaf ear and he returned to his village. On the next day again the deceased started making calls to the accused and demanded him to marry her and that the accused decided to put an end to her, called her to come, while going to pick up her, he kept a rope in his motorcycle, on the way selected the scene of offence to implement his plan and according to his plan picked up her at Eluru outskirts and brought her to Karakatta down at
Nadellavaripalem, H/o Nadakuduru Village, Challapalli Mandal, brutally murdered her by strangulating with the rope brought by him till her death, then committed theft of gold ornaments from her and escaped with the booty.
iv) PW.19 registered the report of PW.1 as F.I.R. in
Cr.No.40/2015 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. of Challapalli Police Station at 19.00 hours on 16.02.2015 and took up investigation, visited the scene of offence, inspected the same before the mediators PW.1 and
LW.21 Madepalli Ramesh and got drafted an observation report by he mediators, hold inquest on the corpse by the inquest panchayatdars and sent the corpse to medical officer, Government Hospital,
Avanigadda for postmortem and recorded their statements and gave wide publicity through print and electronic media as a result, the blood 5 relatives of the deceased came and identified the deceased at
Government Hospital, Avanigadda, then he examined their statements.
He collected call details of the deceased, accused and other witnesses and and suspected the accused and tried to secure him.
v) On 12.08.2015, PW.10 along with the accused turned up to Repalle Town Police Station and informed the S.H.O., Repalle that the accused Nizampatnam Gopala Krishna of Isukapalli confessed the commission of this offence before her and she recorded his statement and on that the S.H.O.Repalle informed her that the place of offence falls in Challapalli Police Station limits and informed the same to PW.20 over phone, on that PW.20 sent a team and brought the accused to
Challapalli Police Station requesting the PW.10 to come with them to
Challapalli Police Station and they reached Challapalli Police at 9.30 hours and PW.10 presented her report along with the statement of the accused recorded by her for taking necessary action.
vi) PW.20 re-registered this case basing on the contents of the report of the PW.10 and statement produced by her altered the section of law from Section 174 Cr.P.C. to 302, 379 I.P.C. and issued fresh express F.I.R. and PW.21 took up investigation and examined
PW.10 and recorded her statement and got recorded the confession of the accused by the mediators PW.18 and LW.24 Ravi Rajeswara Rao as mediators report. PW.10 arrested the accused at 12.00 hours on 12.08.2015 at Challapalli Police Station and in pursuance of his confession seized the M.Os from the house of the accused and also from the Manappuram Finance Limited, Perala Branch in the presence of mediators under cover of mediators reports got drafted by the mediators. He also examined the accused sister PW.15 and also
Pws.11 & 12 and recorded their statements and sent the accused for remand. PW.19 forwarded the material objects seized at the scene of offence to AP RFSL, Vijayawada through Sub Divisional Police Officer,
Avanigadda and report received. LW.25 Dr.J.Rajasekhar, Scientific
Officer, RFSL, Vijayawada analyzed the M.Os and issued report.
PW.16 issued the certificate under Section 65-B (4)(C) of Indian 6
Evidence Act and CDRs. PW.17 conducted autopsy on the corpse and issued PM Certificate.
vii) Therefore, the accused having illicit contact with the deceased, fulfilled his lust and later with a view to lead happy marital life with his lover, decided to kill the deceased, hatched a plan, selected the scene offence, brought her to the scene of offence, brutally killed her by strangulating with a rope and committed theft of gold ornaments from her. Thus, the accused is liable for punishment under Section 302 and 404 I.P.C. After completion of investigation,
PW.21 filed charge sheet against the accused.
9.The case of the Accused is of total denial and he did not adduce any defence evidence.
10.Heard on both sides.
11.Now, the point for consideration is –
Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused for the offences under sections 302, 404 I.P.C with cogent, coherent, consistent and corroborating evidence and beyond all reasonable doubts to punish the accused as per law? POINT:
13.The evidence of PW.1 is,
He is working as V.R.O. of Nadakuduru Village of
Challapalli Mandal. On 16.02.2015, he received a phone call from the villager Nadella Venkateswararao of Nadellavaripalem about a dead body lying near his agricultural land, at that time he was in the
Tahsildar Office to attend video conference, immediately, he rushed to the place of dead body, observed the dead body and found some injuries on the face of dead body and the age of the dead body is about 35 to 45 years and informed the same to the S.I. of Police and gave report Ex.P1 to the S.I. of Police. He has not observed any gold ornaments on the dead body. As it became night on the next day morning at about 6.30 a.m. the Police observed the above scene and 7 prepared the scene observation report Ex.P2 and inquest was conducted over the body of the deceased. Ex.P3 is the inquest report.
The relatives of the deceased and villagers were also present at the time of inquest. They opined that the deceased was brought to the above place and murdered there. He prepared scene observation report on the dictation of the Police. There was no crop in the land of
Nadella Venkateswara Rao at that time. The S.I. of Police, media people, press people came to the above place and news also came in the news papers.
14.The evidence of PW.2 is
i) He is resident of Korukonda Village of East Godavari
District. He is doing Mason work. His wife’s name is Surya Kumari and they blessed with a daughter PW.4 and two sons i.e. PW.3 and LW.4
Mummasani Nagendra Babu. His daughter PW.4 married one
Sudhakar i.e. PW.5 of Campbelpet of Machilipatnam. His wife has
Fileria to her right leg and she could not walk properly. She used to reside at home and also used to lend money for interest. His wife
Surya Kumari go to their daughter’s house now and then. On 15.02.2015 his wife went to his daughter’s house. While he was attending to his works he asked PW.13 to drop his wife at the bus stand. His wife used to go to Machilipatnam in the train or bus. PW.13 said to him he left his wife at the bus stand. His wife left the house with a bag and also had gold ornaments on her body. The gold ornaments are Chandra Haram, black beads chain, Nanutadu, mangalasutram, gold matties, nose stud and also cash of Rs.2,000/-. When he phoned to his daughter to know about his wife she informed to him his wife is going to Vijayawada. On the next day his daughter contacted his wife but his wife cell phone was switched off. The same was informed to him by her daughter and also said her mother did not reach
Machilipatnam. On 17.02.2015, his son-in-law Sudhakar telephoned to him and informed his wife was dead and deadbody of his wife was by the side of Krishna River at Nadakuduru Village. His son-in-law came 8 to know about the dead body of his wife from the news papers and asked them to come to Government Hospital, Avanigadda, they went to
Government Hospital, Avanigadda, at that time his daughter, son-in-law and also the Police were present there. They took them to the mortuary room, he identified the dead body of his wife. He also observed an injury on the nose and forehead and strangulation marks around the neck of the deceased. The gold ornaments were not present on the body of his wife except the nose stud. On the date of leaving the house his wife wear yellow dress.
ii)PW.2 further deposed that the Police recorded his statement. He was present at the time when property identification was conducted by the Police in the presence of mediators. M.O.1 is the
Chandra Haram, M.O.2 is the gold black beads chain, M.O.3 is
Mangala Sutram having Lakshmi Devi idol, M.O.4 is gold nanutadu,
M.O.5 is gold matties (2), M.O.6 is ear studs. He and his daughter made their signatures in the above proceedings. He is of the opinion somebody killed his wife and committed theft of gold ornaments of her.
His wife used to visit his daughters house at Machilipatnam once in a month or couple in a month. He and his wife lived cordially till her death. He has no suspicion over the character of his wife. He denied the suggestion that the gold ornaments stated by him in his statement and the gold ornaments identified by him in the Court are different.
There were no documents with him to show the gold ornaments of his wife were purchased by them. He denied the suggestion that the gold ornaments are not the gold ornaments of his wife.
15.The evidence of PW.3 is he is resident of Korukonda Village of East Godavari District. He is an Auto Driver. PW.2 is his father, LW.4 is his brother and PW.5 is his brother-in-law. His mother’s name is
Surya Kumari. His sister PW.4 married PW.5 and residing at
Campbelpet, Machilipatnam. His mother’s right leg was affected with
Fileria, therefore, she could not walk to a longer distance. His mother used to go to his sister’s house at Machilipatnam. On 15.02.2015 his 9 mother left to Machilipatnam. His mother went along with her gold ornaments M.Os.1 to 6. His mother used to wear those gold ornaments whenever she attend to the functions or going to the relatives’ houses and also going to his sister’s house at Machilipatnam. When he contacted his sister, she informed to him their mother said to her she will go first to his brother’s house i.e. son of senior maternal aunt in
Vijayawada, later his sister informed to him through phone their mother phone was switched off and she has not reached Machilipatnam. Later, they received phone call from brother-in-law PW.5 and he informed about the death of his mother. Then they went to Government Hospital,
Avanigadda and identified the dead body of his mother and observed injuries on the forehead around the neck and some scratches below the right eye on the body of his mother. He also found nose stud to the body of his mother and other gold ornaments were missed. Somebody might have killed his mother for gold ornaments. He denied the suggestion that he do not know about the gold ornaments of his mother and he deposed false at the instance of Police.
16.The evidence of PW.4 is
i) She is resident of Campbelpet, Machilipatnam. She is housewife. PW.2 is her father, PW.3 is her younger brother, deceased
Surya Kumari is her mother and PW.5 is her husband. She know
LW.11 Sajja Balarama Krishna. PW.7, 13 and 14 are related to them.
She married PW.5 in the year 2009. Her father is a Mason worker. Her brother is an auto driver and also doing Mason work. Her mother is house wife and she is also doing money lending business. Her mother’s right leg was affected with fileria. Their relatives or her brother used to drop her at Bus stand whenever she intended to go to the relatives house. Her mother used to come to Machilipatnam one or twice in a month to see her. On 15.02.2015 she received a phone call from her mother that she is coming to Machilipatnam on the next day.
When she contacted her mother’s phone, it was switched off. She informed the same to her father and brother. On the next day morning, 10 her husband went out side and read the news that by the side of
Krishna bank a dead body was found about 35 to 45 years of age.
They informed the same to her father and brother and went to
Government Hospital, Avanigadda, there they observed the dead body of their mother in the mortuary room and except nose stud, the other gold ornaments of their mother was missed. M.Os.1 to 6 are the gold ornaments of her mother.
ii) PW.4 further deposed that the deceased might have murdered her mother for gold ornaments. On 14.08.2015 in the identification of the property, she, her father and brother identified the gold ornaments of her mother at Challapalli Ramalayam in the presence of the V.R.O. and affixed their signatures on the identification proceedings. She did not contacted her brother at Vijayawada to find out whether her mother started from there or not. She did not know the cell phone number of his brother at Vijayawada. She denied the suggestion that at the instance of Police she deposed false.
17.The evidence of PW.5 is
i) He is resident of Campbelpet, Machilipatnam and doing fish business. PW.4 is his wife. He married PW.4 in the year 2009.
PW.2 is his father-in-law. PW.3 is his brother-in-law. The deceased
Surya Kumari is his mother-in-law. His mother-in-law used to come to his wife once in a month to see his wife and children. His mother-in- law’s leg was affected with Fileria. So, she cannot walk properly.
Whenever she came to Machilipatnam by train or bus, he used to go to
Bus Stand and bring her on his two wheeler. On 15.02.2015 his mother-in-law telephoned to his wife and informed she is coming to
Machilipatnam. He always shown his mother-in-law with gold ornaments when she visited their house. M.Os.1 to 6 are the gold ornaments of his mother-in-law. As his mother-in-law did not came to their house they tried to contact her cellphone but it was switched off.
On 17.02.2015 he read the news about the deceased. As the news mentioned about Fileria effected leg, he suspected the dead body 11 might be of his mother-in-law. The news was covered in Andhra Jyothi and Eenadu daily news papers. Immediately, he informed the same to his wife. He and his wife went to Government Hospital, Avanigadda.
ii) PW.5 further deposed that the Police show the dead body in the mortuary and they identified the dead body of his mother- in-law. Except nose stud there were no other gold ornaments of her mother-in-law on her dead body. They suspected somebody might have murdered his mother-in-law for the gold ornaments of her. He denied the suggestion that Mos. 1 to 6 are not the gold ornaments of his mother-in-law.
18.The evidence of PW.6 is he is resident of Nadakuduru
Village of Challapalli Mandal and doing agriculture. Through the public he came to know that dead body of a woman was lying in the land of
Nadella Venkateswara Rao, then he along with others went to that land and found a dead body of woman of about 40 years and right leg of the deceased was affected with fileria. He has not previously saw the deceased in their village or in their surrounding villages. The V.R.O.
was informed about the dead body and who in turn informed to the
Police. The age of LW.2 is about 80 years. He was also present at the time of inquest conducted on the body of the deceased. Ex.P3 is the inquest report and they opined that she might have killed for gold ornaments.
19.The evidence of PW.7 is that he is resident of Vijayawada native of Dawaleswaram of East Godavari District. Presently doing welding work. He know Pws.2 to 5 and also deceased Surya Kumari.
The deceased is house wife and residing at Korukonda and her right leg was affected with Fileria and she is not doing any work. The deceased is in the habit of wearing gold ornaments whenever she visit the relatives’ house and also to the house of her daughter. In the year 2014, the deceased informed them over phone that she would visit them before she goes to her daughter at Machilipatnam. He tried to 12 contact the deceased but her phone was switched off. On receiving the information about the death of the deceased through his father and both went to Korukonda. The dead body was brought from Avanigadda.
He do not know how she was died. He observed a mark around the neck, protruding of tongue and injury on the face of the deceased.
20.The evidence of PW.8 is he is resident of Annavaram and runnina lodge since 4 years at Annavaram Temple. He is the owner of
Raghavendra Residency. On 11.02.2015, a person by name Gopala
Krishna came along with a woman and occupied the room No.204 and they came for darshan of the lord. He mentioned in the hotel register of his particulars. The C.I. and other came and enquired he gave a photostat copy Ex.P4. The cell phone of occupant is 93920065683 noted in the register. He collected Rs.600/- towards room charges.
They vacated the room on 12.02.2015 at about 9 a.m. The age of the woman occupied the room along with him about 40 to 45 years and she wear a yellow colour dress and gold ornaments. He can identified the person, who occupied the room No.204 of his hotel on 12.02.2015.
The accused is the person, who occupied room No.204 on 11.02.2015.
21.The evidence of PW.9 is
i) He is working as Secretary of Kuchinapudi since July, 2017. He worked previously as secretary Penumarru Panchayat from
August, 2014 to 23.11.2015. When he was unemployee at that time he used to do marble works. At that time he know the accused as he failed 10th class. About 10 persons used to do marble works and the accused is also used to do marble work. The accused is one among those. He know the accused. At the request of the father of the accused he admitted him in the tuition classes to write 10th class examinations.
Later he passed 10th class in the month of May, 2010. When he is going to Visakhapatnam in the train he saw a woman boarding at
Rajahmundry and during discussion, he came to know that she is proceedings towards Machilipatnam as she has relatives there. She 13 said her name is Sasirekha. He also gave the cell phone number to that woman. After two days he answered the cell phone calls of her.
ii) PW.9 further deposed that the accused also worked along with him for some time and he used to bring his cell phone when he received call from that woman. After few days, the father of the accused approached him and informed by shouting the accused as he is not properly studying, then the accused escaped from the house.
The father of the accused and he tried to contact the accused but his cell phone was switched off. After 4 or 5 days, the accused contacted him and said he is in Rajahmundry. He informed the same to his father.
When the father of the accused went to Rajahmundray he also escaped from there. The accused informed to him he got the number of
Sasirekha from his cell phone, he is interested on her and also informed to him he is interested to stay at Rajahmundry and continued the relationship with her. He contacted Sasirekha and her brother and requested them to send the accused to his native as his parents are worrying and weeping for him.
iii) PW.9 further deposed that after sometime the accused returned back and began to work along with them. The said said to him he developed close intimacy with Sasirekha. He observed when he met Sasirekha gold ornaments wearing by her. On 01.04.2015 while he is at his working the Police came and informed Sasirekha was murdered by the side of bund of Krishna at Nadakuduru Village. From the Police, he came to know the original name of Sasirekha is Surya
Kumari.
22.The evidence of PW.10 is
i) She is working as V.R.O., Adavuladerevi of Guntur District since October, 2015. Previously she worked as V.R.O., Repalle from
May, 2012 to October, 2015. She know the accused. On 12.08.2015 at about 6 a.m. the accused Nizampatnam Gopala Krishna, resident of
Isukapalli approached her while she was in the office and informed to her he developed intimacy with Surya Kumari @ Rekha of Korukonda of East Godavari District and he also informed to her Surya Kumari 14 demanded him to marry her otherwise she would make galata with his parents and also informed that Surya Kumari black mailed him that she was disclose their relations with his girl friend and also to the parents of the accused if the accused did not marry her. Due to that harassment of Surya Kumari he took Surya Kumari to Nadakuduru and killed Surya
Kumari near the bund of Krishna.
ii) PW.10 further deposed that he also informed to her after murdered Surya Kumari, he took away the ornaments of the deceased.
He took the gold Nanutadu, black beads gold chain, Chandra Haram with three rows, matties and ear studs and went to his house and concealed the stolen property. From there he went to Cheerala,
Repalle, Madras and Dhubai. He also informed to her that he took stolen property with him to Cheerala where his sister residing and asked his sister to pledge the gold ornaments to get some money, by stating that the gold ornaments were given to him by his friend. His sister pledged those gold ornaments in Manappuram for Rs.89,000/- and gave the amount to him, with that money he went to different places. He came to know the Police were searching for him, due to fear he approached her and made extra judicial confession and to surrender him before the Police. After recording the statement of the accused in her office, she affixed her signature and surrendered him
before Repalle Police Station on 12.08.2015 along with surrender
application of the accused Ex.P5 along with confessional statement of accused Ex.P6 bearing signature of the accused in English. The S.I. of
Police informed to her the offence took place within the jurisdiction of
Challapalli Police Station and they immediately, informed about extra judicial confession recorded by her and production of accused. As per information received from Repalle Police Station, the Police of
Challapalli came to Repalle and received the report and extra judicial confession statement of the accused.
iii) In cross-examination, PW.10 stated that there is no prior acquaintance between her and the accused before he approached her.
She cannot say in verbatim Ex.P6 confessional statement of the 15 accused recorded by her. She has no taken the signature of the accused on each page of Ex.P6. In Ex.P6 there is no recital that the accused kept the gold ornaments in his house and there is no recital in
Ex.P6 that she read over the contents of Ex.P6 to the accused and accused admitted those are correct. She denied the suggestion that the accused did not approach her and did not made any confessional statement before her and she has not recorded Ex.P6 confessional statement of the accused and the Police prepared the Ex.P6 and she signed in it in the Police Station and deposed false.
23.The evidence of PW.11 is
i) He is resident of Vadarevu Village of Chirala Mandal.
Previously he worked as Manager of Manipuram Finance Limited,
Perala Branch, Chirala. On 12.08.2015, the C.I of Police and his men came to their branch by bringing a customer by name Motukuri Nirmala and another person and the Police stated to him the another person’s name is Nizampatnam Gopala Krishna and he is an accused in the present case. Their Manipuram Finance branch used to give loans by pledging gold ornaments. On 20.02.2015 their customer by name
Mothukuri Nirmala pledged gold nanutadu, three rows gold chain of
Chandraharam and Mangala Sutram and taken a gold loan of
Rs.89,000/- and the account number of Mothukuri Nirmala is 0115980700011034.
ii) PW.11 further deposed that on 26.05.2015 again she came to their branch and pledged two ear studs, one gold ring and matties and taken gold loan of Rs.20,000/- under gold loan
No.0115980700012182. The Police wanted to seized that property and they informed to their Area Manager, A.M. Security at Ongole and later they handed over the gold ornaments as per the gold loan receipt to the C.I. of Police under proper acknowledgment. The seized gold ornaments were weighed and noted in the branch office register. The
Police hand over the receipt of gold ornaments.
iii) PW.11 further deposed that through the Police they came to know that the brother of Nirmala i.e. Gopala Krishna murdered 16 a woman and took all her gold ornaments and pledged in their branch through his sister. He was not the Branch Manager at the time of pledging the gold ornaments by Nirmala and another person. There is no code on the gold ornaments pledged whose ornaments they are.
24.The evidence of PW.12 is he is working as the Area
Manager, Manipuram Finance Limited, Ongole. Previously he worked as Auditor of Manipuram Finance Limited, Perala, Prakasam District.
His job is to weight the ornaments and certify its quality and weigh when the customers pledged the ornaments for loan. On 12.08.2015 while he was at Perala as Internal Auditor, the C.I. of Police of
Challapalli came to their branch and at the request of the Police, he again weighed and checked the quality of the gold ornaments before handing over to the C.I. of Police. He weighed the gold nanutadu about 24 grams, 3 rows Chandra haram about 24 grams and ear studs weighing about 2 and half or 3 grams.
25.The evidence of PW.13 is he is resident of Korukonda
Village of East Godavari District and doing Mason work. PW.2 is his paternal uncle. He know PW.2, PW.3 and also deceased. The deceased is his paternal aunt. His house is opposite to the PW.2 and deceased. On 15.02.2015 at the instance of PW.2 he dropped the deceased at the Bus stand as she is going to Machilipatnam to see her daughter. He dropped her on his bike at that time she wear yellow dress and gold ornaments of Nanutadu, black beeds gold chain, matties and other chain. On 17.02.2015 he came to know that the deceased died at Avanigadda and the dead body was brought to
Korukonda, at that time he has not observed any gold ornaments. He denied the suggestion that in his 161 Cr.P.C. statements, he stated that he dropped the deceased at Subrahmanyeswara Swamy Temple but not at Bus Stand. He cannot say his driving license and bike number.
The Police shown the gold ornaments of the deceased when he saw the dead body of the deceased. He denied the suggestion that he has not dropped the deceased at Bus stand.
17
26.The evidence of PW.14 is
i) He is resident of Korukonda. He know Pws.1 to 5 and 13 and also deceased Surya Kumar. The distance between his house and house of deceased is 200 yards. His paternal aunt Surya Kumari once came to his house along with one Gopala Krishna in the month of April, 2010 and introduced him that the accused is resident of Repalle and asked him to give some employment to the accused as he is searching for a job. He informed to her he will enquire and let her know if any job is available. His paternal aunt Surya Kumari and the accused were in his house at about 15 minutes and went away.
ii) PW.14 further deposed that on 17.02.2015, he came to know his paternal aunt Surya Kumari was died at Nadakuduru Village of Avanigadda and she was murdered by the accused Gopala Krishna and after killing her he took away her gold ornaments. In cross- examination, he stated that he has not remembered the date on which
Surya Kumari and accused came to his house. He has no prior acquaintance with the person, who came along with his paternal aunt to his house. He came to know his paternal aunt was died under suspicious circumstances. He denied the suggestion that his paternal did not brought to him the accused and asked him to provide job to him.
27.The evidence of PW.15 is she is resident of Perala, Chirala of Prakasam District. She is doing Tailoring works. Her father blessed with two daughters and one son. Her brother’s name is Gopala Krishna and her sister’s name is Lakshmi residing at Guntur. The accused is her brother. Her brother used to came to her house now and then.
There is a Branch of Manappuram Finance Limited at Peerala and she used to take gold loan by pledging the gold whenever she needed amount. Her brother never came to her and given gold ornaments for obtaining gold loan from Manappuram Finance Limited by pledging them and he never asked her to pledge gold ornaments by saying that they are giving to him by his friends.
18
28.The evidence of PW.16 is
i) He is working as Nodal Officer, Reliance Communications
Limited, Hyderabad since August, 2011. He received a requisition letter from Addl.S.P., Krishna District for furnishing of call details of the mobile numbers 9014078887 and 9392065683. He furnished call details of the said mobile numbers from 11.05.2015 to 12.05.2015 along with ownership particulars. The mobile number 9014078887 is in the name of Lakshmi Sudheer, 5-57, Pedakaragraharam, Krishna
District and mobile number 9392065683 is in the name of Sai Babu N, 8-32-32/4, Isukapalli, Repalle.
ii) PW.16 further deposed that he furnished call data along with covering letter. Ex.P8 is the covering letter. Ex.P9 is the certificate issued under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act. Ex.P10 is Call data list. Ex.P11 is certified copy of application form of Lakshmi Sudhakar.
Ex.P12 is certified copy of voter identity card of Lakshmi Sudhakar.
Ex.P13 is the certified copy of application form of Sai Babu and Ex.P14 is the certified copy of voter card of Sai Babu Nizampatnam.
29.The evidence of PW.17 is he is working as Civil Assistant
Surgeon of Area Hospital, Gudivada. Previously he worked as Medical
Superintendent, Area Hospital, Avanigadda from 15.07.2012 to 30.06.2016. On 17.02.2016 at about 12.15 p.m he conducted autopsy over the body of Mummasani Surya Kumari and found (1) a legature mark is present on the front of neck of both sides of angles of mandible measuring 21 x 1 cm. X ¼ cm in size. (2) a contusion on right side of forehead measuring 3 cm x 2 ½ cm in size blank in colour. (3) a contusion on nose measuring 2 ½ x 2 cms in size blank in colour. (4) right leg with foot filaria in nature is observed. The hyoid bone was fractured and the tongue was protruded outside. He observed visra and sent to RFSL. He received RFSL report Ex.P15. Basing on it he gave final report and opined that the death was due to asphyxia due to strangulation. The time of death between 24 hours to 48 hours prior to postmortem examination. Ex.P16 is the postmortem report. He has not collected the tissues underneath the neck. He has not noticed finger 19 prints or nail marks of the neck of the deceased. In case of throttling finger prints will be found on the surface of neck. He has not found petecheal haemorrhages in the brain. He has not found any blood clots in the iris.
30.The evidence of PW.18 is
i) He is worked as V.R.O. Challapalli from 2008 to 24.06.2016 on 12.08.2015 at about 10 a.m. at the instance of his
M.R.O., he went to Challapalli Police Station accompanied by LW.24
Ravi Rajeswara Rao and came to know in the police station the accused is Gopala Krishna involved in the murder case of a woman, which took place at Nadakuduru near Krishna river of Challapalli
Mandal. The accused confessed before them and he drafted the confession of the accused. Ex.P17 is the confessional statement of the accused. He narrated in his confession statement, the accused failed
SSC examination, he confessed the offence before V.R.O., Repalle that he developed illegal contacts with the deceased even though he had love affair with another girl and he met the deceased at
Annavaram and stayed in a hotel. The deceased intended to marry him and pressurized him, in that connection, the accused requested the deceased to forget him as he is going to marry another girl Santhi, but the deceased continued to harass the accused. In that connection, the accused decided to eliminate her and made a phone call to her to the cell phone of the deceased and he went on his two wheeler received the deceased and they went to movie and returned from Vijayawada via Karakatta Road and by using a plastic rope available in his vehicle used to tie the gas cylinder killed the deceased with that rope and took away the gold ornaments of the deceased and pledged the gold ornaments at Manappuram Finance at Perala, Chirala in the name of his sister for two times. Due to fear of the arrest of the Police of him approached the V.R.O., Isukapalli and made extra judicial confession and he surrendered him before the Police.
ii) PW.18 further deposed that in pursuance of his confession he laid the Police and mediators to the house of accused 20 situated at Isukapalli of Repalle Mandal, there the police seized plastic yello colour rope. Ex.P17 is the confessional statement of the accused.
Ex.P18 is the mediators report at the father’s house of accused at
Isukapalli. At the time of preparation of above mediators report, the S.I.
and C.I.. were present along with them. The accused signed on the confessional statement and the mediator panchanama. M.O.7 is the plastic rope seized in their presence and it is faded yellow colour.
iii) PW.18 further deposed that the Police also seized blank beads gold chain, Mangal sutrams with Lakshmi Devi idot, gold nanutadu, matties of the deceased under Ex.P18. The Police also seized Yamaha Motorcycle bearing Regn.No.AP 07 CG 1822 in their presence and they signed on them. Ex.P19 is the seizure panchanama with regard to seizure of the gold ornaments from Manappuram
Finance Limited, Perala. On 14.08.2015, the identification of the gold ornaments conducted at Challapalli Ramalayam temple. The husband and the daughter of the deceased identified the gold ornaments of the deceased in their presence and affixed their signatures. Ex.P20 is the property identification proceedings. Accused is the person who made the confessional statement.
31.The evidence of PW.19 is
i) He is working as S.I. of Police, Kalidindi. Previously he worked as S.I. of Police Challapalli Police Station from 25.01.2014 to 25.05.2015. On 16.02.2015, he received a written complaint from PW.1 and he registered the same as case in Crime No.40/2015 under
Section 174 Cr.P.C. and issued F.I.R. Ex.P1. As he received report at about 7 p.m. from PW.1 as it is late nigh he posted the guards to protect the scene during night time. He examined and recorded the statement of PW.1 on the same day and on the next day morning, he went to the scene of offence at about 6.30 a.m. prepared the scene observation report Ex.P2 in presence of mediators and drawn a rough sketch Ex.P22, he also taken the photographs of the scene of offence
Ex.P23 and Ex.P24 is the CD of the photographs. He conducted the inquest of the body of the deceased in presence of mediators. Ex.P3 is 21 the inquest report. Then he handedover the deadbody to the
Government Hospital for postmortem examination. He examined and recorded the statements of Pws.2, 3, 4, LW.2 and LW.4 at the scene of offence and the dead body was not identified by any person. The
Police gave wide publicity though print and electronic media. On seeing the news papers, the relatives of the deceased came to
Government Hospital, Avanigadda and they identified the deadbody and he also recorded their statements.
ii) PW.9 further deposed that he also collected the call details of the deceased, accused, husband, daughter and son-in-law of the deceased. He sent the visra and hyoid bone collected by the doctor to the RFSL for examination and report. Later he was transferred and handed over the charge to PW.20 for further investigation. He is not collected the foot prints in the scene of offence. He examined the relatives and blood relatives of the deceased in the Government
Hospital, but they have not expressed suspicion on the accused. The call data was not filed in this case. He denied the suggestion that he has not done scientific investigation. If he done the same he might have traced the real culprit.
32.The evidence of PW.20 is
i) He is working as Inspector of Police, Avanigandda. Previously, he worked as S.I. of Police, Challapalli from 25.05.2015 to 12.07.2016. On 25.05.2016, he took charge of investigation in this case. On 12.08.2015, he received a phone call from S.I. of Police, Repalle with regard to surrender of the accused through V.R.O., Isukapalli. As the case related to murder of a woman at Nadakuduru Village, outskirts of
Challapalli, he informed the surrender of the accused before Repalle to his higher authorities, then he sent team from Challapalli Police Station to Repalle and they brought the accused and VRO of Isukapalli to
Challapalli Police Station. He received written report Ex.P5 from V.R.O.
Isukapalli and also received extra judicial confession of the accused
Ex.P6.
22 ii) PW.20 further deposed that basing on Ex.P6, he altered the section of law from Section 174 Cr.P.C. to Section 302 and 379
I.P.C. He filed the memo for alteration of Section Ex.P25 before
Magistrate on 12.08.2015. As the offence is grieve in nature he handed
over the CD for further investigation to PW.21. He sent a requisition to the M.R.O. to arrange mediator for conducting mediators panchanama with regard to confession and other proceedings.
33.The evidence of PW.21 is
i) He is working as Inspector of Police, Intelligence, Eluru of W.G.District since 11.02.2017. Previously he worked as C.I. of
Police, Challapalli from 18.12.2014 to 11.02.2017. On 12.08.2015, while he was in duty, the S.I. of Police, Challapalli telephoned to him and said S.I. of Police, Repalle said to him the V.R.O. of Isukapalli brought the accused along with confessional statement as the offence was not in their jurisdiction and it was occurred at Nadellavaripalem of
Challapalli Mandal and he gave the instructions to the S.I. of Police to bring the accused and instructed him to give requisition to Tahsildar to appoint a V.R.O. He went to Challapalli Police Station at 9.45 a.m. and received the F.I.R. along with C.D. file. Then he took up the investigation and examined and recorded the statement of
PW.10/V.R.O. of Isukapall, he secured the mediators and recorded confessional statement of the accused in their presence.
ii) PW.21 further deposed that the accused confessed that he got acquaintance with the deceased Mummasani Surya Kumari @
Rekha of Korukonda Village of East Godavari District through his friend and he is in regular phone contact with her and she pressurized him to marry him, but he has already in love with another girl and he will marry her. Likewise, the deceased came to Eluru and the accused went and brought her on his motor bike and on the midnight of 15.02.2015 the accused killed the deceased by tying the rope around the neck of her and killed her and taken gold ornaments of her and pledged some of the gold ornaments through is sister at Manappuram finance at Perala and other ornaments with him and he kept the gold ornaments and the 23 rope used by him on the sunshade of his house and if they come he will show them.
iii) PW.21 further deposed that in the presence of mediators in the Police station he recorded the confessional statement of the accused. From there along with mediators and Police he went to
Isukapalli to the house of accused, he went to inside of the house and brought a carry bag from his house and gave the carry bag to them, he opened it and saw a rope tied with knots on both ends and 2 Mangala sutrams with Lakshmi Devi Bommalu and gold nanu kodu, a black beads chain with locket and ear matties. He seized them under the cover of mediators report from the accused. He also seized Yamaha
Motorbike of the accused in the verandah of his house. Total five material objects were seized.
iv) From there they went to Perala of Prakasam District and brought her sister from her house Motukuri Nirmala and examined and recorded her statement. They took them to the Manappuram Finance,
Perala Branch. The Manager showed their record of pledge of
Nanutadu and Chandraharam and on 26.02.2015 the ear studs were pledged by PW.15 along with other ornaments. He seized the above pledged gold ornaments from Manappuram Finance under the cover of mediators report and obtained signatures of Nirmala and Bank officers.
Then he returned to the Police Station with the accused and on the next day, sen the accused to medical examination and sent him to judicial custody. He handed over the seized gold ornaments with some other ornaments like features of above gold ornaments to the mediators to conduct the identification property through PW.4/Vatapalli
Lakshmi Devi.
v) PW.21 further deposed that they conducted property identification parade and PW.4 identified the gold ornaments of her mother. On 16.08.2015 he went to Korukonda, examined and recorded the statements of PW.14, from there went to Annavaram to the
Raghavendra Residency and examined the owner of said residency i.e. PW.8 and also taken the xerox copy of room allotment register with 24 signature of PW.8. on 26.08.2015, he have requisition to Reliance
Communications through their Addl.S.P. for the call date of accused and deceased of the phone numbers 9392065683 and 9014078887.
On 28.09.2015 he received the PM Certificate of deceased. On 09.11.2015 he submitted the property seized to the Court. On 11.12.2015 he received the call details from Reliance Communications.
After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.
vi) During cross-examination, PW.21 stated that the case depending upon circumstantial evidence and no direct witnesses saw the offence by the accused. From 16.02.2015 to 12.08.2015 there is no incriminating material till alteration of F.I.R. He has not examined the
Passport Authorities with regard to accused goint to Dubai. One phone is in the name of N.Lakshmi Sudhakar and another phone is in the name of Sai Babu, the father of the accused. He has not collected the foot prints in the scene of offence. Finger prints on the rope and on
M.Os.1 to 7 are not collected. He has not asked anybody in and around the house of the accused to act a mediators as already mediators are with him.
vii) PW.21 denied the suggestion that accused did not gave the confessional statement and Exs.P17 to 20 and M.Os.1 to 7 are planted for the purpose of this case. He also denied the suggestion that he has not went to the lodge at Annavaram and not recorded the statement of owner and not seized anything there. He also denied the suggestion that he has not seized M.Os at Manappuram Branch at
Perala. He denied the suggestion that after six months of the offence they foisted the case against the accused. He also denied the suggestion that there is no extra marital relationship between the deceased and the accused.
34.The learned PP argued that there is extra marital relationship between the accused and the deceased Surya Kumari and
Surya Kumari pressurized the accused to marry her. Accused loved another girl but the deceased Surya Kumari harassed him if he will not marry her, she will come to his house and also met his girl friend and 25 informed their relationship to them. Therefore, the accused decided to kill Surya Kumari, he brought Surya Kumari from Eluru and from there took her to the Karakatta of Krishna River and killed her with a rope tying to her neck and took away the gold ornaments of her and concealed the some of gold ornaments and rope used for killing Surya
Kumari in his house and took some of the gold ornaments with him and pledged them through his sister at Manappuram Finance Company and moved different towns, later due to fear of arrest of the Police he surrendered before the V.R.O., Isukapalle of Repalle Mandal and she surrendered him before the S.H.O., Repalle. As the scene of offence comes to Challapalli Village, the accused was taken by Challapalli along with his confessional statement and the accused also confessed
before the C.I. of Police and mediators about keeping of the rope used
by him for killing Surya Kumari and some of the gold ornaments kept in his house and led the Police along with mediators to his house and the
Police seized the gold ornaments and rope used for killing of Surya
Kumari by the accused and also he led them to Manappuram Finance
Company, Perala at Cheerala and seized the gold ornaments pledged through his sister. So, the accused committed murder of deceased
Surya Kumari and also thefted the gold ornaments of her and the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts.
35.The learned counsel for the accused argued that the accused is no way concerned about this offence. The date of offence is on 15.02.2015 and till 12.08.2015 there is no allegation against the accused and there were no relations between the deceased and the accused. The accused did not kill Surya Kumari and did not theft the gold ornaments of her. The entire story of the prosecution depends upon the confessional statement made by the accused. The case is depending upon the circumstantial evidence. The prosecution has to prove every link of chain with conclusive proof completing the chain of evidence without leaving any link of chain. There is no acquaintance 26 between PW.10 V.R.O. of Isukapalli of Repalle and the accused. The accused did not approach the V.R.O. and did not make the confessional statement of committing offence i.e. killing of Surya
Kumari and taking the gold ornaments of her by him. Further the confessional statement before the Police in the Police Station is not permissible in evidence under Section 25 of Indian Evidence Act. The plastic rope and gold ornaments were not seized at the house of the accused and he has not shown any things to the Police in presence of the mediators. The mediators are the selected mediators. The same mediators were acted as mediators at the time of seizure of rope and gold ornaments and also the seizure of the gold ornaments at
Manappuram Finance Limited and they are not the independent mediators. So, their evidence is not trustworthy. The accused is not having any need or pressurizing circumstances to make a confession of the offence of murder before a stranger to him. It is highly improbable thing. The circumstances of the facts stated by the prosecution witnesses are contradicting with each other. The accused did not pledge the gold ornaments with Manappuram Finance company through his sister, it also create a story of the prosecution after a lapse of six months from the date of offence by creating false confessional statement with their own mediators, thereby the prosecution totally failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts as required for the proof of the case under the settled principles of circumstantial evidence.
36.He relied upon the following Rulings of the Apex Court and our Hon’ble High Court;
i)2019 (1) ALD (Crl) 137 wherein our Hon’ble High Court at paras 20 & 21 held that “In case of Tomasco Bruno and another v. State of U.P., 2015 (1) ALD (Crl) 663 (SC) + 2015 (2) ALT (Crl) 6 (SC), the Apex Court has clearly held that in every case based upon circumstantial evidence, the question that needs to be determined is whether the circumstances relied on by the prosecution are proved by reliable and cogent evidence and whether all the links in the chain of circumstances 27 are complete so as to rule out the possibility of innocence of the accused. It is further held that the conviction can be based solely on the circumstantial evidence. But, it should be tested on the touchstone of the law relating to circumstantial evidence”.
Para (21) “The settled law is that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully proved and such circumstances must be conclusive in natures. Moreover, all the circumstances should be complete and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence. Further the proved circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence.” ii)2018 (1) ALT (Crl) 304 (DB) (A.P.) wherein our Hon’ble High Court at para 24 held that “it is settled proposition that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, motive plays predominant role. It however pales into significance of there is direct evidence”. “The prosecution heavily relies upon the extra judicial confession said to have been made by the accused in presence of PW.18, the Village Revenue Officer. There are catena of authorities which lay down that extra judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence and the same cannot be made the basis unless there is evidence which is corroborated by other prosecution evidence and should inspire the confidence of the court. Suffice it to refer to a decision of the Supreme Court in Kala v. State (1) (2016) 9 SCC 337 wherein the Apex Court observed at paras 8 and 9 as under”. “Para 8 In Sahadevan v. State of T.N. {2012 (3) ALT (Crl) 482 + (2012) 6 SCC 403}, it has been observed that extra-judicial confession is weak piece of evidence. Before acting upon it the court must ensure that the same inspires confidence and it is corroborated by other prosecution evidence. In Balwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab {1995 Supp (4) SCC 259}, it has been observed that extra-judicial confession requires great deal of care and caution before acceptance. There should be no suspicious circumstances surrounding it. In Pakkirisamy v. state of T.N. {(1997) 8 SCC 158}, it has been observed that there has to be independent corroboration for placing any reliance upon extra judicial confession. In Kavita v. State of T.N. {(1998) 6 SCC 108}, it has been observed that reliability of the same depends upon the veracity of the witnesses to whom it is made. Similar view has been expressed in State of Rajasthan v. Raja Ram {(2003) 8 SCC 180}, in which this Court has further observed that witness must be unbiased and not even remotely inimical to the accused. In Aloke Nath Dutta v. State of W.B {(2007) 12 SCC 230}, it has been observed that the main features of confession are required to be verified. In Sansar Chand vs. State of Rajasthan {(2010) 10 SCC 604}, it has been observed that extra judicial confession should be corroborated by some other material on record. In Rameshbhai Chandubhai Rathod v. State of Gujarat {(2009) 5 SCC 740}, it has been observed that in the case of retracted confession it is unsafe for the court to rely on it. In Vijay 28
Sankar v. State of Haryana {(2015) 12 SCC 644} this Court has followed the decision in Sahadevan”. At Para-9...”In the circumstances of the case, the confession made to Susheela, PW.4 does not inspire confidence. She was not having good relationship with the accused and is not corroborated by other evidence on record, hence, it would not be safe to act upon it in the facts and circumstances of the case. The extra-judicial confession made to Police is admissible only with respect to the recoveries made of the moped as well as a piece of nylon saree, pursuant to the information, which articles are not proved to be connected with offence.” iii)(2014) ACR 927 SC, wherein our Apex Court at para 14 to 16 held that “in Mani vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2008) 1 SCR 228, this Court made following pertinent observation on this very aspect: “The discovery is a weak kind of evidence and cannot be wholly relied upon on and conviction in such a serious matter cannot be based upon the discovery. Once the discovery fails, there would be literally nothing which would support the prosecution case” “There is a reiteration of the same sentiment in Manthuri Laxmi Narsaiah vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2011) 14 SCC 117 in the following manner: It is now well settled that in a case relating to circumstantial evidence the chain of circumstances has to be spelt out by the prosecution and if even one link in the chain is broken the accused must get the benefit thereof. We are of the opinion that the present is in fact as case of no evidence.”
Likewise, in Mustkeem alias Sirajudeen vs. State of Rajasthan (2011) 11 SCC 724, this Court observed as under: “In a most celebrated case of this court, Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116, in para 153, some cardinal principles regarding the appreciation of circumstantial evidence have been postulated. Whenever the case is based on circumstantial evidence the following features are required to be complied with. It would be beneficial repeat the same salient features once again which are as under (SCC p.185) i. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be draw must or should be and nor merely ‘may be’ fully established; ii. The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty; iii. The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency; iv. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and v. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the 29 innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused”
Withe regard to Section 27 of the Act, what is important is discovery of the material object at the disclosure of the accused but such disclosure alone would not automatically lead to the conclusion that the offence was also committed by the accused. In fact, thereafter, burden lies on the prosecution to establish a close link between discovery of the material object and its use in the commission of the offence. What is admissible under Section 27 of the Act is the information leading to discovery and not any opinion formed on it by the prosecution. It is settled position of law that suspicion, however strong, cannot take the character of proof.
iv)2003 CRI.L.J. 1297 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court at para 11 held that “It is thus evident that after the alleged recovery the document pursuant to which the recovery was supposed to be made was got signed from the witness and thumb impression of the appellant taken. Therefore, no reliance in regard to recovery of ornaments can be placed on the testimony of Police Officer.
v)2019 (2) ALT (Crl) 186 (DB) (A.P.) wherein our Hon’ble High Court at para 26 held that “the only other circumstance left is the extra judicial confession made by accused No.1 before PW.15. PW.15 is no other than the Village Revenue Officer of Markapur, who was working there since last four years. According to him, on 09.09.2011 at about 11.00 a.m. accused No.1 is said to have approached him and made a confession admitting her guilt, which came to be recorded under Ex.P13 and thereafter, along with the accused No.1, a report was handed over to the police. It is to be noted that, though PW.15 in his evidence speaks about the extra judicial confession made by accused No.1, but however, his admissions in the cross-examination establish that he was a total stranger. It would be appropriate to extract the relevant admissions in his cross-examination, in his own words, which are as under: “I do not have prior acquaintance with A1. In my service I did not help to A1 and her family members personally any time. For the first time I came to know the identity of A1 and about her relationship with the deceased boy’s family on 09.09.2011. I did not prepare any rough note, I directly recorded the confession of A1. In four or five cases belonging to Markapur Town P.S. I recorded extra judicial confession...” vi)2013 (1) ALD (Crl) 121 (A.P.) wherein our Hon’ble High Court at para 39 held that “the fourth circumstance relied upon by the prosecution to 30 connect the accused to the death of the deceased is the arrest of the accused by PW.17 on 16.6.2006 and recovery of MO4-gold chain from accused No.1 and the further arrest of the accused No.2 at the instance of A1. The recovery of MO4-gold chain from accused No.1 cannot be believed because PW.3-mother of the deceased in her evidence stated that MO4-gold chain and MO5-piece of MO4, were shown to her by the police in the police station on the very next day of the incident i.e. on 07.06.2006.
vii)AIR 9 SC 1141 wherein the Apex Court at para 5 held that “it may be mentioned that plaintiff has not subjected himself to cross-examination inspite of the order of the Court after the remand, therefore, it would not be safe to rely on the examination-in-chief recorded which was not subjected to cross-examination.
37.The name of the deceased in this case is Mummasani
Surya Kumari, resident of Korukonda Village of East Godavari District.
The accused is resident of Repalle of Guntur District. The scene of offence is land adjacent to the Karakatta of the Krishna River in village
Nadendalvaripalem in the land of Nadendla Venkateswara Rao. After finding the dead body at the agricultural land of Nadendla
Venkateswara Rao at the Karakatta of Krishna River,
Nadendlavaripalem, the villagers informed to PW.1 V.R.O. and he gave the report Ex.P1 to the S.I. of Police, Challapalli. The S.I. of Police registered the report of PW.1 as Crime No.40/2015 under Section 174
Cr.P.C. on 16.02.2015 and issued the F.I.R. Ex.P2.
38.PW.2 is the husband of deceased, PW.3 is the daughter,
PW.4 is the son and PW.5 is the son-in-law of the deceased Surya
Kumari. They all deposed that on 15.02.2015 Surya Kumari started from Korukonda to come to the house of PW.3 and PW.5 at
Machilipatnam but she has not reached the house of her daughter at
Machilipatnam. On 16.02.2015 PW.5 i.e. husband of her daughter saw in the news paper about the finding of deadbody with Filaria affected leg was found at Karakatta of the Krishna River and he suspect the dead body may be his mother-in-law and he and PW.3 went to the
Hospital and found the dead body is of Surya Kumari, then he informed the same to the PW.2 and PW.4, they also came and saw the dead 31 body of Surya Kumari. PW.6, who is one of the villagers, who observed the dead body in the scene of offence.
39.PW.7 is the son of the sister of Surya Kumari, he also gave the evidence that Surya Kumari did not come to their house and after knowing about the death of Surya Kumari and his family members went to Korukonda and saw the dead body of Surya Kumari.
40.PW.8 is the owner of Raghavendra Residency, Annavaram, his evidence is on 11.02.2015 one person by name Gopala Krishna along with a woman occupied room No.204 in their hotel and paid
Rs.600/- towards the room rent and he identified the accused as the person came to the said hotel. Ex.P4 is the photostat copy filed by the prosecution to prove the accused and Surya Kumari stayed in the above hotel on 11.02.2015. Ex.P4 is a photostat copy on a ruled paper and it is not containing the particulars of how many people occupied the room and it also not containing the name of the above hotel.
Further he was examined by the Investigating Officer after arrest of the accused i.e. on 16.08.2015. So, the above evidence of PW.8 and
Ex.P4 is not a conclusive proof about occupation of above room by the accused along with deceased Surya Kumari and the identification of the accused by PW.8 is also a doubtful one.
41.PW.9 is a friend of the accused, his evidence is before he got the job he and the accused done marble work and while they are going to Vizag he got acquaintance with a woman by name Rekha in the year 2010 and she used to call him through phone and the accused also talk with her in the phone and the accused said to him he developed intimacy with Rekha and later Rekha pressurized the accused to marry her and he took her to the Krishna River at Karakatta and killed her and stolen her gold ornaments. On going to the C.D. it is found he was examined by the Investigating Officer on 01.04.2015. If really PW.9 gave the above statement to the Investigating Officer on 32 the above date certainly the accused might have shown as accused on the said date only and there is no need to the Investigating Officer wait till 16.08.2015 until the accused made the confessional statement to
PW.10. Further, as per the evidence of PW.9, he is also having close intimacy with Surya Kumari. The date of examination of him and not showing the accused on the above date as accused in this case and the factum of his intimacy with Surya Kumari also creating a doubt with regard to the truth in the evidence of PW.9. As per the prosecution case, PW.13 dropped Surya Kumari on his motor bike at the Bus
Stand. He also gave evidence to that effect.
42.The case of the prosecution is totally depends upon the confessional statement of the accused to PW.10 and also recovery of
M.Os. 1 to 6 at the house of accused at Isukapalli and also at
Manipuram Finance Limited, Perala of Cheerala. The accused totally denied the case of the prosecution and also making confessional statement before PW.10 and recovery and seizure of M.Os. 1 to 6 by the Police basing on his confession. The confession Ex.P5 is an extra judicial confession. PW.10 the V.R.O. of Isukapalli stated that the accused approached her while she is in her officer and made the confessional statement before her i.e. Ex.P5. The accused denied the making of confessional statement to PW.10. In cross-examination of
PW.10, she admitted that there is no prior acquaintance to the accused with her and she do not know the family members of the accused and on that day only the accused came and made confessional statement of the offence before her. So the accused is a stranger to PW.10. The
PW.10 V.R.O. of Isukapalli basing on the confessional statement as per prosecution case, surrendered the accused before Repalle Police
Station and from there the accused was brought by Challapalli Police
Station.
43.PWs.19, 20 and 21 are the Investigating Officers in this case. PW.17 is the Doctor, who done autopsy on the body of the deceased and opined that the deceased died due to Asphyxiaand 33 there is ligature mark on the front side of the neck of the deceased. So, as per the medical evidence, the death of the deceased is homicidal one.
44.PW.18 Vogirala Naga Malleswara Rao is the V.R.O.,
Challapalli he along with LW.24 Ravi Rajeswara Rao acted as mediators in the Police Station while the accused making confessional statement of the offence and also the seizure of the plastic thread and also the gold ornaments at the house of the accused and also for seizure of the gold ornaments pledged by the accused through his sister at Manipuram Finance Limited, Perala.
45.PW.21 the C.I. of Police, who done major portion of investigation in this case, stated that the accused after making confession laid them along with mediators to his house and brought the plastic carry bag and handed over it to him, he opened the cover and found the plastic thread tied with knots of both ends, two mangala sutrams with Lakshmi Devi Bommalu, gold Nanutadu, a black beads chain with locket and ear matties and he seized those gold ornaments and rope under the cover of Ex.P18 seizure mediator report in the presence of PW.18 and LW.24. He further stated that as per confession of the accused, he along with the staff and mediators PW.18 and
LW.24 went to Perala and brought the sister of the accused PW.15 by name Nirmala and went along with accused and Nirmala along with mediators to Manipuram Finance Limited and seized the gold
Nanutadu, Chandra Haram and ear studs pledged by PW.15 on two dates to the Manipuram Finance Limited. As per Ex.P19 Mediators
Report the mediator PW.18 also stated the same thing about the seizure of the gold ornaments at the house of accused and also
Manipuram Finance Limited.
46.PW.11 stated that he previously worked in Manipuram
Finance Limited, their customer Nirmala i.e. PW.15 along with accused 34 came and pledged the gold ornaments i.e. the Nanutadu, Chandra
Haram and ear studs and the accused is the person who came with
PW.15. In cross-examination, he stated that he is not the Manager on the date of above pledging of the gold ornaments by PW.15. So, there is no possibility for PW.11 to see PW.15 or the accused at the time of pledging of the gold ornaments in the branch as he is not the Manager on the above dates. PW.11 is the one of the officers of the above
Manipuram Finance Limited, who weighed the gold ornaments pledged.
47.As per mediator PW.18 and the Investigating Officer PW.21, the above ornaments were seized at the house of the accused and also at Manipuram Finance Limited. On going through the above ornaments, it is found the gold nanutadu was seized at the house of accused and also at Manipuram Finance Limited. But as per the evidence of husband, daughter, son and son-in-law of the deceased
Surya Kumari, Surya Kumari wear one gold nanu tadu only. But how the Investigating Officer seized two gold nanu tadulu at the house of accused and also at Manipuram Finance Limited was not known. The same mediator PW.18, who is the V.R.O. of Challapalli and LW.24 acted as mediators in the Police Station at the time of making confessional statement and also at the time of seizure of discover of the gold ornaments and plastic rope at the house of the accused as per the confession and also recover of the seizure of gold ornaments at
Manipuram Finance Limited, Perala. So, they are not the independent witnesses of that locality they are chosen by the Investigating Officer for acting as mediators and they in routine course acted as mediators and signed in mediators reports Exs.P17, 18 & 19 in a routine course.
So, there is no possibility of recovery of gold Nanutadu at the house of accused and also at Manipuram Finance Limited by the Investigating
Officer and to the mediators also there is chance to see the gold
Nanutadu at the house of the accused and also at Manipuram Finance
Limited. So, the confessional statement Ex.P18 and Ex.P19 are quite 35 contradicting with each other and also the mediators’ evidence is also not trustworthy to rely on them to convict the accused.
48.Further, the prosecution led the evidence the motive for this offence to the accused is as there is extra marital relationship between the deceased and the accused and the deceased pressurized the accused to marry her otherwise she will went to his house and inform to their family members and also to the lover of the accused and informed their relation with them. Therefore, the accused decided to kill her at Karakatta of Krishna River. The age of the accused is around 20 years. The age of the daughter of deceased is 28 years. The age of one of the son of the deceased is 23 years and she is also having another son aged about 20 years and she is affected with Filaria to her right leg, her husband is a mason. Pws.1 to 5 categorically stated that there is no suspicion to them on the character of the deceased Surya
Kumari. So, a woman is having husband, a married daughter about 28 years and sons aged about 23 and 20 years, with Filaria leg, in general circumstances will not develop such an extra marital relations with a person in the age group of the accused. So, such motive is also creating a doubtful circumstances and it will not certainly a conclusive proof of motive for the offence of the accused.
49.As per the rulings of Apex Court and also our Hon’ble High
Court as referred above judgments, making a confessional statement to a stranger i.e. PW.10 V.R.O. of Repalle is also a doubtful thing. As such a confession should cannot be a basis for the conviction of the accused. So, the confessional statement Ex.P5 and the confession- cum-mediators reports Exs.P17, 18 & 19 are self contradictory with each other.
50.Further, PW.13 in his cross-examination stated that he saw the gold ornaments of Surya Kumari at the house of PW.2 when the dead body was brought to their village as the Police shown the gold 36 ornaments of her to him. This is also one of the strong circumstance against the prosecution.
51.As per the above evidence of the prosecution, the motive is a doubtful motive and the confessions are unnatural and self contradictory with each other. The case is based on circumstantial evidence. As per rulings of Apex Court and also our Hon’ble High Court relied by the counsel for the accused, all the circumstances has to conclusively proof the guilt of the accused without missing of any link of the chain and there should not be any hypothesis of the innocence of the accused. So, all the links of circumstances produced by the prosecution are not connecting with each other and they were not a conclusive proof of the guilt of the accused.
52.In the above said facts and evidence on record, the accused is certainly entitled for the benefit of doubt. For the above reasons, it is held that the prosecution is failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts and accused is found not guilty and he is acquitted for the offences under Sections 302 and 404 of
I.P.C.
53.In the result, Accused is found not guilty of the offences under Sections 302, 404 I.P.C. and he is acquitted under section 235(2) Cr.P.C for the offences under sections 302, 404 I.P.C. Return the M.Os. 1 to 6 to PW.2 and destroy the M.O.7 thread after completion of appeal time. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months.
Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-III, transcribed and
typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 24th day of July, 2019.
IX ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
KRISHNA, MACHILIPATNAM.
37
Appendix of Evidence
Witnesses Examined
For Prosecution. For Defence
P.W.1: K.Venkateswara Rao.-- None --
P.W.2: M.Srinivasa Rao.
P.W.3: M.Manikanta Swamy.
P.W.4: V.Lakshmi Devi.
P.W.5: V.Lakshmi Sudheer.
P.W.6: S.Rambabu.
P.W.7: S.Srinivas.
P.W.8: K.Karuna Kumar.
P.W.9: D.Anil Babu.
P.W.10: Ch.Padmavathi.
P.W.11: S.Srinu Babu.
P.W.12: K.Mahendra.
P.W.13: Pemmada Satish Kumar.
P.W.14: Presangi Satish Kumar.
P.W.15: M.Nirmala.
P.W.16: S.Madhusudhana Gupta.
P.W.17: Dr.V.D.R.Kumar.
P.W.18: O.Nagamalleswara Rao.
P.W.19: Y.Sudhakar.
P.W.20: V.Manikumar.
P.W.21: Y.V.Ramana.
Exhibits marked on behalf of Prosecution:
Ex.P.1: Report given by PW.1 to the Police.
Ex.P.2:Scene Observation Report.
Ex.P.3:Inquest Report.
Ex.P.4:Photostar copy of Hotel Register certified by PW.8.
Ex.P.5:Report given to Police by PW.10.
Ex.P.6: Confession statement of accused recorded by PW.10 on 12.08.2015
Ex.P.7: Statement of PW.15 u/s 161 Cr.P.C.
Ex.P.8: Covering Letter.
Ex.P.9: Certificate issued u/s 65(B) of Indian Evidence Act.
38
Ex.P.10:Call Data List
Ex.P.11:C.C. of application from the Lakshmi Sudhakar.
Ex.P.12:C.C. of voter identity card of Lakshmi Sudhakar.
Ex.P.13: C.C. of application form of Sai Babu.
Ex.P.14: C.C. of voter card of Sai Babu Nizampatnam.
Ex.P.15: RFSL Report.
Ex.P.16: PME Certificate with final opinion
Ex.P.17: Confession statement of accused dt.12.08.2018 at 10 a.m.
Ex.P.18:Mediators report at the house of father of the accused at
Isukapalli on 12.08.2015 at 12.40 Noon.
Ex.P.19: Seizure Panchanama ddt.12.08.2015
Ex.P.20: Property identification proceedings dt.14.08.2015.
Ex.P.21: F.I.R. in Cr.No.40/2015 of Challapalli Police Station under Section 174 Cr.P.C.
Ex.P.22: Rough Sketch.
Ex.P.23: 7 photographs.
Ex.P.24: Corresponding CD of photos.
Ex.P.25:Section alteration memo dt.12.08.2015.
Exhibits marked on behalf of Defence:
– NIL –
Material Objects marked:
M.O.1 : 3 lines Chandraharam.
M.O.2 :Black Beads Chain.
M.O.3 :2 Mangalasutras.
M.O.4 :Nanuthadu.
M.O.5 :Gold Matties (2)
M.O.6 :Ear Studs (2)
M.O.7 :Faded Yellow colour thread.
IX ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
KRISHNA, MACHILIPATNAM.