1
IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE;
(FAST TRACK COURT), TIRUPATI
PRESENT: Smt D.Lakshmi Kameswari, B.Sc., B.L., VI Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Tuesday the twenty ninth day of February, Two thousand twelve (29 022012)
SESSIONS CASE NO. 357 OF 2008
The State Represented by the SubInspector of Police, Alipiri
Police Station. (Crime No. 12/2007)... Complainant.
Vs
1. Mitta Likesh, age 40 years, S/o. M.Narasimhulu, D.No.9, Green Park Apartment, D.R Mahal, Tirupati, Vysya by caste (A.1).
2. Arava Suneela, age 37 years, W/o. Pratap, Gandhi Nagar Colony, Avilala Panchayat, Tirupati Rural, Mala by caste (A.2)
3. Eramaluru Ramesh, 30 years, S/o. E.Narasimhulu, Kranthi Nagar, Jeevakona, Tirupati, Balija by caste (A.3)
4. Cheepurupalli Bala Subramanyam, age 29 years, S/o. CH. Sathyanarayana, D.No.12.5.566/R, SKD Nagar, Tirupati, Ummuluru, Poturu Mandal, West Godavari District, Mangali by caste (A.4)
5. Mendu Seshadri, age 32 years, S/o. Late. M.Krishnaiah, D.No.44940/B, Nehru Nagar, Tirupati, Record Assistant in S.V.University, Tirupati, Yadava by caste (A.5)
6. Pothati Prakash, age 30 years, S/o. Doraswamy, D.No.1459, L.B.Nagar, Tirupati, Mala by caste, (A.6)
7. Kanchu Vasu, S/o. Krishnama Naidu (died) (A.7)
8. G.Venkateswarlu, age 40 years, S/o. G.Govindaswamy, Singalagunta, Tirupati, Driver of car No.CNH 4033, Rajaka by caste (A.8) 2
9. Erambaluru Jagadeesh @ Jaggu, 25 years, S/o. Narasimhulu, D.No.10318, Kranthi Nagar, Jeevakona, Tirupati, Balija by caste (A.9) 10.Daggupati Gopi, age 30 years, S/o. D.Venkateswara Rao, D.No.10320, Kranthi Nagar, Jeevakona, Tirupati, N/o. Beside Chalamaiah House, Thota Street, Yeleswaram,
... Accused.
Rajahmundry (A.10)
PRC No.: 37 of 2008 on the file of III Additional
Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Tirupati.
Prosecution conducted by: Sri Kalakada Suryanatha Reddy
Additional Public Prosecutor.
Defence Counsel: 1. Sri. R.Murali Manohar Prasad Advocate for Accused No.1
2. Sri. V.V.Chandra Sekhar, Advocate for Accused No.2
3. Sri K.Chenna Kesavulu Reddy, Advocate for Accused 3 to 6 & 8 to 10 (Accused No.7 having been died, case abated on 18.4.2011 against A.7)
Offence Charge: U/Sec:120B IPC against A.1 and A.2.
U/Sec:364 IPC against A.2 to A.5, A.9 & A.10.
U/Sec:364 r/w 109 IPC against A.6 to A.8
U/Sec:384 IPC against A.2 to A.4.
U/Sec:323 IPC against A.3 & A.4
U/Sec:506 IPC against A.3 & A.4
U/Sec:365 IPC against A3 to A.5, A.9 & A.10
Plea of the accused: Pleaded not guilty.
Finding of the court: Found not guilty for the charges levelled against each of the accused.
Sentence or Order: In the result, the accused 1 to 6 and 8 to 10 are acquitted U/Sec:235 (1) Cr.P.C. of the charges levelled against them. M.O.1 to M.O.3 shall be confiscated to the state after appeal time.
Reasons for delay: Nil 3
This case coming on 14.2.2012 before me for final hearing and upon perusing the oral and documentary evidence placed on record by both sides and upon hearing the arguments of Sri. Kalakada Suryanatha Reddy, Additional Public Prosecutor for the
State/Complainant, and of Sri. R.Murali Manohar Prasad, Advocate for Accused No.1,
Sri. V.V.Chandra Sekhar, Advocate for Accused No.2; Sri K.Chenna Kesavulu Reddy,
Advocate for Accused 3 to 6 & 8 to 10 and (Accused No.7 having been died, case abated on 18.4.2011 against A.7) and this matter having stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following:
// J U D G M E N T //
1.The SubInspector of Police, Alipiri Police Station filed charge sheet in
Crime No.12/2007 under Sec:120B, 364A, 365, 384, 324, 323, 506 and 109 IPC R/w 34
IPC of Alipiri Police Station.
2. The charge sheet contents are that: On 25.1.2007 at 4.00 A.M Mr. S.Giri, S/o.
S.Kesavulu Naidu, resident of Sivajyothi Nagar, Tirupati, lodged a complaint that his elder brother S.Madhusudhana Rao along with his car was not appearing from the evening of 24.1.2007 and that he had lastly contacted him at about 6.45 p.m by phone and thereafter he did not turn up and the cell phone got switched off and that there was no prior occasion when his elder brother Madhusudhana Rao never come late to the house and that on the previous day evening he has taken an amount of Rs.5,00,000/ from the house to pay the same to Dolphin Bus owner Lokesh and did not return and that on the previous day there were threats from Kadapa people and therefore sought for an action.
3. The above said complaint was registered as crime No.12/2007 as man missing and investigated into. During the course of investigation the SubInspector of Police,
Alipiri examined and recorded the statements of L.W.1 to L.W.3 (S.Giri, P.Hari Babu and Rayadurgam Sekhar Babu) on 25.1.2007 and on 25.1.2007 during night L.W.4
Madhusudhana Rao appeared in Alipiri Police Station and the SubInspector of Police,
Alipiri Police Station, recorded the statement of Madhusudhana Rao in the presence of 4
L.W.18 S.Srinivasa Raju and L.W.19 G.Purushotham and his relatives, who stated that he was kidnapped by Arava Suneela (A.2) and her followers and that he was detained at a lodge at Rajampeta and that her followers extracted valuables from him with a demand of payment of Rs.40,00,000/ towards difference amount of sale proceeds of a house.
4. Basing on the statement of the victim Madhusudhana Rao (L.W.4) the Sub
Inspector of Police, Alipiri Police Station altered the section of law from man missing to
Sec:120B, 364A, 365, 384, 324, 323, 506 and 109 IPC R/w 34 IPC and took up investigation and he forwarded the victim to SVRRGG Hospital for treatment and he recorded the statements of L.Ws.4 to 10 (S.Madhusudhana Rao, M.Suresh, K.Devaraj,
S.Khaleel, S.Khader Valli, P.Venkataramana, and K.Gurrappa Naidu respectively) and seized the carbon copy of Guest Registration Polio of Guestline Hotel, Tirupati, in the name of Suneela (A.2). On 27.1.2007 he visited Rajampet and Mydukur, examined and recorded the statement of L.W.13 Bigi Vemula Jaya Subba Reddy, and seized copies of bills at Hotel Maruthi Prasanth, Rajampet and lodge receipt and other related documents.
On 28.1.2007 at 9.00 P.M he arrested Mitta Lokesh (A.1) at his house and recorded his confessional statement in the presence of L.W.20 A.Raja Babu and L.W.21 Bhaskar Rao and seized his cell phone with SIM No.9948027101 under cover of mahazar and submitted him for judicial custody. The SubInspector also recorded the statements of
L.W.14 A.Gopi and L.W.15 V.Nagaraju.
5. During the course of further investigation he arrested A.Suneela (A.2),
E.Ramesh (A.3), C.Balasubramanyam (A.4), M.Seshadri (A.5), P.Prakash (A.6), and
K.Vasu (A.7) at the house of Suneela (A.2) at Gandhipuram Colony and recorded their confessional Statement in the presence of LW.22 K.Bhaskar Rao and L.W.23 Rajani and seized a cell phone with SIM No.9866361382 from Suneela (A.2) and the unspent cash of
Rs.500/ and on the same day he arrested G.Venkateswarlu (A.8) at RASS Building and basing on his confession the SubInspector seized the Ambassador car bearing No.CNH 4033 which was said to have been used in the commission of offence. On 26.2.2007 he arrested E.Jagadheesh @ Jaggu (A.9) and D.Gopi (A.10) and recorded their confessional statement and subjected them for judicial custody.
5
6. The SubInspector of Police collected the ownership particulars and the details of the incoming and outgoing calls to the cell phones of Suneela (A.2) and
C.Balasubramanyam (A.4) from L.W.26 A.Venkata Ramana Reddy, L.W.27
S.Madhusudhana Gupta and L.W.28 D.Bhanu Prakash. The Medical Officer who treated
L.W.4 Madhusudhana Rao certified that the injuries sustained by the victim are also simple in nature. The learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati, has conducted test identification parade where the relevant witnesses have identified the relevant accused.
During the course of investigation, the SubInspector of Police, collected the credit card statement pertaining to the account of the victim. As the investigation revealed that
L.W.2 and L.W.3 have purchased building in TP area, Tirupati for an amount of
Rs.50,00,000/ from A.1 and thereafter A.1 has been pressurizing them to pay the enhanced value of the land and on that there was a dispute and in the course A.1 with the help of A.2 who inturn engaged the rest of the accused kidnapped the victim and charge sheet has been filed under secs: 120B, 364A, 365, 384, 324, 323, 506 and 109 IPC R/w 34 IPC.
7. The learned III Additional Judicial I Class Magistrate, Tirupati, has taken cognizance of the case U/Secs:120B, 364A, 365, 384, 324, 323, 506 and 109 r/w 34
IPC and as the offence U/Sec:364A is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate has committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Chittoor Division at
Chittoor and the learned Sessions Judge at Chittoor has numbered the same as
S.C.No.357/2008 and made over the case to the court of IV Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Tirupati for disposal according to law.
8. On appearance of the accused the learned IV Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Tirupati has framed charges U/Sec:120B IPC against A.1 and A.2, U/Sec:364
IPC against A.2 to A.5, A.9 and A.10, U/Sec:364 r/w 109 IPC against A.6 to A.8,
U/Sec:384 IPC against A.2 to A.4; U/Sec:323 IPC and 506 IPC against A.3 and A.4,
U/Sec:365 IPC against A.3 to A.5, A.9 and A.10, and explained to them and on their pleading not guilty, the court has proceeded to hear the prosecution.
9. At that stage the case has been transferred to this court as per the orders of the 6
Honourable High Court of A.P in ROC No.874/E2/2010 dated 8.10.2010 which was
communicated to this court vide District Court's OP.Cell bearing Dis.No.8589/2010
dated 18.10.2010 for disposal according to law.
10. During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution, P.W.1 to P.W.19 were examined, Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.38 and M.O.1 to M.O.3 were marked. On closure of prosecution evidence the accused were examined U/Sec:313 Cr.P.C and on hearing of arguments the matter has been posted for Judgment.
11. The point for consideration is: Whether the prosecution has proved the charges levelled against all the accused?
12. POINT: The case of the prosecution is that Madhusudhana Rao ( P.W.3) was kidnapped in pursuance of the criminal conspiracy between M.Lokesh (A.1) and
A.Suneela (A.2) and with the help of other accused. It is the case of the prosecution that all the accused are directly or indirectly involved in the kidnap episode of
Madhusudhana Rao (P.W.3). The undisputed facts are that: Madhusudhana Rao (P.W.3) and Peram Hari Babu (P.W.14) are partners in Real Estate Business and also partners of
Durga Residency. It is also admitted fact that they both purchased the adjacent property to Durga Residency from M.Lokesh (A.1) for a sale consideration of Rs.50,00,000/ even in the year 2006 and after paying the entire a sale consideration to M.Lokesh (A.1) the property was got registered in the names of Madhusudhana Rao (P.W.3) and Peram Hari
Babu (P.W.14).
13. The motive for the alleged kidnap was that M.Lokesh (A.1) was compelling
Madhusudhana Rao (P.W.3) to pay Rs.40,00,000/ more, considering the hike in the Real
Estate field for the property which was already sold by him to Madhusudhana Rao (P.W.3) and P.Hari Babu (P.W.14).
14. In order to establish that aspect, Madhusudhana Rao (P.W.3) was examined and during the course of his evidence, he said that M.Lokesh (A.1) asked him to pay
Rs.40,00,000/ more and the matter was mediated and that he paid a part of amount. His evidence does not disclose how much amount was paid by him to meet the demand of 7
M.Lokesh (A.1). As far as that demand is concerned P.Hari Babu (P.W.14) said that he was told by Madhusudhana Rao (P.W.3) that M.Lokesh (A.1) was demanding
Rs.40,00,000/ more for the property already sold by him. During the course of his cross examination he said that M.Lokesh (A.1) never directly demanded him for the payment of the excess amount. The property was purchased by Madhusudhana Rao (P.W.3) and
Hari Babu (P.W.14) together and the subsequent demand of M.Lokesh (A.1) was not made before Hari Babu (P.W.14) and the evidence of Hari Babu (P.W.14) shows that he was told about the additional demand only by Madhusudhana Rao (P.W.3). Therefore, there is no additional demand of money by M.Lokesh (A.1) directly to P.Hari Babu (P.W.14).
15. The other aspect is the kidnap episode. The evidence of S.Giri (P.W.1) who is the younger brother of the victim and complainant too, shows that in view of the property dispute between his brother and M.Lokesh (A.1) when Madhusudhana Rao (P.W.3) has not come back on the day of incident as before, they all have suspected
M.Lokesh (A.1) and lodged Ex.P.1 complaint. His evidence shows that he has never seen M.Lokesh (A.1) and he has no acquaintance with him. The evidence of Raya
Durgam Sekhar Babu (P.W.2) is also not helpful to the case of the prosecution.
Madhusudhana Rao (P.W.3) is the victim. During the course of his evidence he said that when a lady telephoned to him and asked him to show a plot, he has gone alone and at that time about 5 or 6 persons came there and caught hold of his hands and tied his eyes with cloth and taken him in a car and he was kept in a place till the next day morning. At about 10.00 A.M he could open the cloth and observed that he was in his car at Kurnool and could came back by driving his own car. That is the gist of his chief examination.
He assertively said that he cannot say who were the persons kidnapped him and he cannot identify any of them.
16. The charge against M.Lokesh (A.1) and A.Suneela (A.2) is U/Sec:120B.
Except the alleged confession of M.Lokesh (A.1) and A.Suneela (A.2) there is no other evidence before the court to believe that charge. It is the defence that A.Suneela (A.2) is a woman Congress Leader and she is a familiar lady in the District and that she is known to public through media and with such familiarity of her face only, the witnesses have 8 identified her. Even though during the course of cross examination of Madhusudhana
Rao (P.W.3) he admitted to have stated as suggested to him by the learned Additional
Public Prosecutor during the course of his examination Hindi Form of cross examination when Madhusudhana Rao (P.W.3) did not support the version of the prosecution. Those statements cannot found part of evidence. It is the settled law that the statements recorded by police under sec:161 Cr.P.C are hit by Sec:162 Cr.P.C and can only used for contradicting the witnesses. Even during the course of cross examination by the learned
Additional Public Prosecution, he denied to have identify A.Suneela (A.2) when she was
shown by the Kidnappers that the lady who was sitting in the car is Suneela. Mere identification before the learned Magistrate in the Test Identification Parade is not a conclusive piece of evidence and when the witness fails to identify the accused in the court the proceedings of the Test Identification parade may not help in identifying the accused. More over, Madhusudhana Rao (P.W.3) said in his evidence that just before going to the parade, he was shown the photographs of the accused. The evidence of
Madhusudhana Rao (P.W.3) is sufficient to believe that he was forcibly taken in the form of kidnap by some male persons. At no point of time he said a lady was also involved in this case. When the episode of kidnap is said by Madhusudhana Rao (P.W.3), it is the duty of the prosecution to connect each and every accused to such episode.
17. S.Khadar Valli (P.W.4) is the Manager of a Travels Company. Through him, the prosecution wants to show that A.Suneela (A.2) has taken on rent the Innova vehicle but he did not say anything about A.Suneela (A.2) and he simple said that a lady who stay in a hotel has taken the Innova and that vehicle was involved in a problem. During the course of his cross examination nothing could be elicited.
18. K.Gurrappa Naidu (P.W.5) is one of the friends of Madhusudhana Rao (P.W.3) through whom the prosecution wants to show that he was informed by
Madhusudhana Rao (P.W.3) that he was kidnapped at the instance of M.Lokesh (A.1).
But K.Gurrappa Naidu (P.W.5) did not say anything about the kidnap and simple said that one day before such kidnap Madhusudhana Rao (P.W.3) gave him an amount of
Rs.5,00,000/ as hand loan and thereafter he was said to be kidnapped and after two days he came back.
9
19. A.Gopi (P.W.6) is a circumstantial witness and said to be the relative of
A.Suneela (A.2). But he did not say anything and he said that he has never seen
A.Suneela (A.2) and there is no such relationship. Likma Ram Patel (P.W.9) and
Kalyani Desai (P.W.11) are the panch witnesses for the alleged confession of
E.Jagadeesh @ Jaggu (A.9) and D.Gopi (A.10) and they also did not say anything about the alleged confession by E.Jagadeesh @ Jaggu (A.9) and D.Gopi (A.10) and no property has been seized at their instance. A.Venkata Ramana Reddy (P.W.12), S.Madhusudhana
Gupta (P.W.15) and Venugopal (P.W.17) are the Officers of Airtel, Reliance and
Vodafone Companies and they produced the incoming and outgoing calls of particular cell numbers.
20. The other important piece of evidence is that of K.Bhaskar Rao (P.W.16), who is the V.R.O, through whom the prosecution wants to prove the arrest of E.Ramesh (A.3),
C.Balasubramanyam, (A.4), M.Seshadri (A.5), P.Prakash (A.6) and K.Vasu (A.7). He categorically stated that on the call of police he accompanied them and they have knocked the door at Vidhya Nagar where A.Suneela (A.2), E.Ramesh (A.3),
C.Balasubramanyam, (A.4), M.Seshadri (A.5), P.Prakash (A.6) and K.Vasu (A.7) were present and on interrogation they all confessed their involvement in the kidnap of
Madhusudhana Rao (P.W.3). He also said that the police seized M.O.1 and M.O.2 which are the Motorola cell phone from A.Suneela (A.2) and unspent money of Rs.500/ from
E.Ramesh (A.3). When the prosecution wants to show that it has seized unspent money of Rs.500/ from E.Ramesh (A.3), first of all, it has to prove that an amount of
Rs.15,000/ was taken or extracted from Madhusudhana Rao (P.W.3) by him. There is absolutely no material before the court and there is no evidence on the part of P.W.3 (Madhusudhana Rao) that an amount of Rs.15,000/ was extracted from him. The evidence of P.W.16 (K.Bhaskar Rao) shows that he deposed in about 15 cases as a
V.R.O and the evidence clearly shows that it is stereo type evidence and unsafe to believe the confession which lead to seizure in the absence of any other evidence which corroborates the evidence of P.W.16 (K.Bhaskar Rao).
21. Soon after the return of P.W.3 (Madhusudhana Rao) the police have said to have been recorded the statement of P.W.3 (Madhusudhana Rao) basing on which the 10 section of law was altered under different sections of IPC from the case of man missing.
During the course of evidence of P.W.3, he did not adhere to the contents of the statement said to have been recorded by the police and he admitted his signature and the same is marked as Ex.P.4. Therefore the contents of that document are not marked through P.W.3 (Madhusudhana Rao). The case of the prosecution is that the statement was recorded by police on his escape from the kidnappers in the presence of P.W.8 (S.Srinivasaraju). During the course of his examination he also did not say the recording of statement of Madhusudhana Rao (P.W.3) in his presence by the police and he simply admitted his signature as in Ex.P.12. Therefore, the statement was marked through
P.W.19 (K.Venkatappa) i.e. the Investigating Officer as Ex.P.38. It is also settled position of law that in the absence of corroborative evidence, the identification of the accused by the witnesses in the test identification parade is not substantive piece of evidence and it only helps the prosecution agency in the process of investigation.
Therefore, even though some of the witnesses said to have identified the witnesses before the learned Magistrate who is examined as P.W.13 (B.Venkataramana) the reluctance to identify the same accused before the court is sufficient to hold that there is no corroboration in identifying the accused and in such case it is not safe to adhere the accused to the alleged kidnap episode of P.W.3 (Madhusudhana Rao). The main charge that was framed against all the accused is under Sec:364 IPC alleging that A.1 and A.2 conspired together and hatched a plan to kidnap P.W.3 in order to do away his life. But there is absolutely no evidence before the court that the accused have done acts which are apprehensive to P.W.3 that in such course they may do away his life. When there is no substantive evidence in identifying the accused to be connected to the alleged incident and if there is any doubt with regard to the identity of the accused, the benefit should be given to the accused. Therefore, I hold that the evidence on record is insufficient to believe the several charges levelled against the accused and I hold that the accused are entitled for acquittal.
22. In the result, the accused 1 to 6 and 8 to 10 are acquitted U/Sec:235 (1)
Cr.P.C. of the charges levelled against them. M.O.1 to M.O.3 shall be confiscated to the state after appeal time.
11
Dictated to the Stenographer of this Court after transcription, corrected, signed
and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 29th day of February 2012.
VI Additional District & Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Tirupati.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined on behalf of Prosecution:
P.W.1S.Giri.
P.W.2R.Durgam Sekhar Babu.
P.W.3S.Madhusudhan Rao.
P.W.4S.Khadhar Valli.
P.W.5K.Gurappa Naidu.
P.W.6A.Gopi.
P.W.7R.Babu.
P.W.8S.Srinivasa Raju.
P.W.9Likma Ram Patel.
P.W.10A.Raja Babu.
P.W.11K.Desaiah.
P.W.12A.Venkataramana Reddy.
P.W.13B.Venkataramana.
P.W.14P.Hari Babu.
P.W.15S.Mdhusudhana Gupta.
P.W.16K.Bhaskar Rao.
P.W.17K.Venugopal.
P.W.18Dr. E.R.Harikrishna.
P.W.19K.Venkatappa.
Witnesses examined on behalf of defence: Nil
Exhibits marked on behalf of prosecution:
Ex.P.1Complaint lodged by P.W.1 dated 24.1.2007.
Ex.P.2Relevant portion in 161 Cr.P.C Statement of P.W.1 dt 25.1.2007.
Ex.P.3Relevant portion in 161 Cr.P.C Statement of P.W.2 dt 25.1.2007.
Ex.P.4Signature of P.W.3 in 161 Cr.P.C statement dt 25.1.2007.
Ex.P.5Relevant portion in 161 Cr.P.C Statement of P.W.3 dt 26.1.2007.
12
Ex.P.6Relevant portion in 161 Cr.P.C Statement of P.W.3 dt 26.1.2007.
Ex.P.7Relevant portion in 161 Cr.P.C Statement of P.W.3 dt 26.1.2007.
Ex.P.8Relevant portion in 161 Cr.P.C Statement of P.W.4 dt 26.1.2007.
Ex.P.9Relevant portion in 161 Cr.P.C Statement of P.W.5 dt 26.1.2007.
Ex.P.10Relevant portion in 161 Cr.P.C Statement of P.W.6 dt 30.1.2007.
Ex.P.11Relevant portion in 161 Cr.P.C Statement of P.W.7 dt 16.2.2007.
Ex.P.12Signature of P.W.8 in the statement of of P.W.3 recorded by police dated 25.1.2007.
Ex.P.13Signature of P.W.9 in confessional statements of A.9 and A.10 in arrest mahazarnama dated 26.2.2007.
Ex.P.14Signature of P.W.10 in Confessional Statement of A.1 dated 28.1.2007.
Ex.P.15Signature of P.W.11 in confessional statements of A.9 and A.10 in arrest mahazarnama dated 26.2.2007.
Ex.P.16Airtel mobile No.98663 61383 incoming and outgoing calls list from 20.1.2007 to 25.1.2007.
Ex.P.17Particulars of Airtel mobile No.98491 88803 incoming and outgoing calls list from 21.1.2007 to 27.1.2007.
Ex.P.18Memo of requisition made by Police.
Ex.P.19Proceedings of the Test Identification parade dt 3.3.2007.
Ex.P.20Relevant portion in 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.14.
Ex.P.21Particulars of Reliance cell phone of P.W.3 and covering letter.
Ex.P.22Admissible portion in the confessional statement of A.2 dated 13.2.2007.
Ex.P.23Admissible portion in the confessional statement of A.3 dated 13.2.2007.
Ex.P.24Admissible portion in the confessional statement of A.8 dated 13.2.2007 at 4.15 P.M.
Ex.P.25Hutch Company Cell particulars incoming and outgoing call details of cell No.99852 95518.
Ex.P.26Wound Certificate of P.W.3 issued by P.W.18.
Ex.P.27FIR in Crime No.12/2007 of Alipiri Police Station for man missing.
Ex.P.28Altered FIR in Cr.No.12/2007 altered to Sec:364A, 365, 384, 324, 506, 323 r/w 34 IPC
Ex.P.29Police Proceedings for seizure of receipt dt 26.1.2007 at 7.00 pm.
Ex.P.30Receipt of Guest Registration Polio No.47 of Guestline Hotel , Tirupati.
Ex.P.31Rough sketch of scene of offence.
Ex.P.32Police proceedings pertaining to the seizure of Innova car dt 27.1.2007.
Ex.P.33Relevant police proceedings dt 27.1.2007 at 3.00 P.M.
Ex.P.34Police proceedings dt 27.1.2007 at 5.00 P.M.
13
Ex.P.35Admissible portion in the confessional statement of A.1 at page No.6 of the Mahazarnama dated 28.1.2007 at 9.00 p.m.
Ex.P.36Police proceedings dt 10.4.2007.
Ex.P.37SBI credit card monthly statement of P.W.3.
Ex.P.38Statement of P.W.3 Dt:25.1.2007.
Exhibits marked on behalf of defence :
NIL
Material objects marked on behalf of prosecution:
M.O.1Blue colour Motorola company cell phone with SIM No.9866361383 of A.2.
M.O.2Cash of Rs.500/ one note.
M.O.3Nokia model 2600 cell phone No.9948027101 of A.1
VI Additional District & Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Tirupati.
14