1 S.C.No.400 of 2011
IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,
KADAPA AT PRODDATUR
PRESENT: - Sri G. Manohara Reddy, II Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur.
Dated: Friday, the 29th day of March, 2019.
Sessions Case No.400 of 2011
(P.R.C.No.63 of 2008 on the file of the
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mydukur)
1.ComplainantInspector of Police, Mydukur Rural Circle.
2.Accused1. Kaveti Sivashankar @ Siva Prasad, S/o Venkata Subbaiah@ Venkataiah aged 34 years, Yerukala, Jyothi village, Sidhout mandal, now residing at Rayachoty. (A.1).
2. Yerikala Anjaneyulu @ Anji, aged 36 yrs, S/o Nadipi Naganna, Yerukala Reddyvaripalli, Tsakibanda pancha- yat, Chinnamandam mandal. (A.2).
3. Pujari Nagaraju,S/o Venkataramana aged 34 years, Yerukala,Kothapeta, Rayachoty. (A.3).
4. Anke Siddaiah @ Siddu, aged34 yrs S/o Venkataramana, Prashanthi Nagar, Rayachoty, caste by Yerukala. (A.4 – died).
5. Yerikala Puri Shankar, aged 36 yrs, S/o Guruvaiah, Yerukala, Kothapeta Rayachoty. (A.5 – split up). Case is abated against accused No.4 as he died and case against accused No.5 is split up and the same is numbered as S.C.NO.56/2018.
3. Offence chargedU/s. 302 of I.P.C. against the accused No.1, U/s. 302 r/w. 149 of I.P.C. against the accused Nos.2 and 3 and U/s.148, 302, 307 r/w. 149 and 324 r/w. 149 of I.P.C. against accused Nos.1 to 3.
4. Plea of the accusedTotal denial.
5. Finding of the JudgeAccused Nos.1 to 3 are found not guilty.
6. Sentence or orderIn the result, the accused Nos.1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offences punishable U/s. 302 of I.P.C. against the accused No.1, U/s. 302 r/w. 149 of I.P.C. against the accused Nos.2 and 3 and U/s.148, 302, 307 r/w. 149 and 324 r/w. 149 of I.P.C. against accused Nos.1 to 3 and consequently they are
II A.D.J. Court, Pdtr. 2 S.C.No.392 of 2013 acquitted u/s. 235 (1) of Cr.P.C. The Maruthi Van bearing No.AP03-9009 which was already returned to its owner for interim custody shall be holds good till the disposal of the split up case against accused No.5. The valuable and non-valuable property if any shall be kept intact till the disposal of the split up case against accused No.5. The bail bonds of the accused Nos.1 to 3 shall be in force for a period of six months.
7. Prosecution conducted by:Sri M. Surendranatha Reddy,
Additional Public Prosecutor,
II Additional Sessions Judge’s Court, Kadapa at Proddatur.
8. Accused defended bySri P. Raghunatha Reddy, Advocate for accused Nos.1 and 3. Sri M. Konda Reddy, Advocate for accused No.2.
9. P.R.C. Committed byJudicial Magistrate of First Class, Mydukur in PRC.No.63/2008.
10. Date of offence04.05.2005.
Date of report04.05.2005.
Date of remandA.1 to A.3 = 21.05.2005. A.4 = 06.07.2005. A.5 = 31.05.2005.
Date of release on bailA.1 to A.3 = 16.08.2005. A.4 = 25.08.2005. A.5 = 16.08.2005.
Date of Committal to Sessions07.08.2011. Court. Date of commencement of trial12.11.2018.
Date of close of trial28.03.2019.
Date of Judgment.29.03.2019.
S.C.No.400/2011 II A.D.J. Court, Pdtr.3
This case coming before me on 28.03.2019 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri M. Surendra Reddy, Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State and Sri P. Raghunatha Reddy, Advocate for the accused Nso.1 and 3 and Sri M. Konda Reddy, Advocate for the accused
No.2 and after hearing both sides and perusing material papers on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-
J U D G M E N T
The Inspector of Police, Mydukur Rural has filed charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 to 5 in Cr.No.45 of 2005 of Khajipeta Police
Station for the offences punishable U/s. 147, 148, 324, 307, 302 r/w. 149 of I.P.C.
1.The case of the prosecution in brief is that the deceased No.1/K.
Subbarathnamma is the wife of brother of accused No.1 and were at
Poosala Kottalu and accused No.1 was also staying with them prior to four years of this occurrence for learning the jeep driving. The husband of deceased No.1 was working as RTC conductor at Mydukur depot and they blessed with two male children. During the lifetime of deceased
No.1, her husband married one Devi who is his relative residing at
Mahanandi of Kurnool District and they blessed with one male child.
The husband of deceased No.1 committed suicide two years prior to this occurrence on suspicious circumstances. After the death of husband of deceased No.1, accused No.1 left Poosala Kottalu stayed at Rayachoty since one year as a driver. During his stay at Rayachoty, accused No.1 developed friendship and close association with accused Nos.2 to 5, who are also working as coolies at Dish Antena and Agency. Thus, accused
Nso.1 to 5 are close friends and associates.
During the life time of husband of deceased No.1 by name
Sreenivasulu, worked as RTC Conductor look after the welfare of his
S.C.No.400/2011 II A.D.J. Court, Pdtr.4 father, mother and accused No.1. After the death of said Sreenivasulu, the accused No.1 was discarded by deceased No.1. After the death of husband of deceased No.1, she got death benefits of her husband for a tune of Rs.1,90,000/-. Knowing the same, the accused No.1 and his parents picked up a quarrel with deceased No.1 claiming their share in death benefits. The mediators interfered and pacified the matter, held a panchayath and got decided that two shares to deceased No.1 and one share to the parents of accused No.1 and another share to the second wife of Sreenivasulu. During the life time of deceased No.1’s husband taken four insurance policies for an amount of Rs.2,75,000/- by keeping his minor son as nominee. In that panchayath, the accused No.1 and his father asked the mediators to get divide their share, for that deceased No.1 did not accept to give share, for which the accused No.1 picked up quarrel with deceased No.1. The mediators interfered and pacified the matter. Subsequently the father of accused No.1 filed a
Succession O.P. No.15 of 2004 in the court of Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa and as the deceased No.1 is contesting the same, on that accused No.1 used to come to deceased No.1 and picked up quarrel with her and her parents i.e., deceased No.1 and threatened with dire consequences.
Whenever the deceased No.1 and the defacto complainant attended the court at Kadapa, the accused No.1 used to abuse deceased No.1 and threatened her that he will kill her. Besides that in-laws threatened the deceased No.1 and they used to come to Khajipet and quarrel with deceased No.1. As such the deceased No.1 developed fear about accused No.1 and his parents used to tell with L.W.7-T. Laxmi
Narasamma that any point of time, they will kill her. Accused No.1 who developed grudge with deceased No.1 waited to eliminate her as to get
L.I.C. amounts of his brother deceased Sreenivasulu and father and he
S.C.No.400/2011 II A.D.J. Court, Pdtr.5 developed that deceased No.1 is responsible for the death of his brtoher and further he got suspicion of deceased No.1 at any time after getting the L.I.C. amounts she will desert her children. Basing on all facts, accused No.1 decided to do away the life of deceased No.1, hatched a plan along with accused Nos.2 to 5 and eating for an opportunity to wreak vengeance.
Basing on the said ill-feelings, on 03.05.2005 at about 6.30 p.m., accused Nos.1 to 5 went to L.W.14 – K. Kishore who is his owner, asked
Maruthi van, made him believe that they are going to B.Mattam and took the Maruthi van bearing No.AP03-9009, reached Guvvala Cheruvu, had their lunch, consumed beer, left from that place by 11.00 p.m. On the intervening night of 03.05.2005/04.05.2005 at about 00.30 hours, reached agricultural market yard situated near the house of deceased
No.1 and parked by the side of the road towards Kadapa side. Then all the accused formed themselves into members of any unlawful assembly, armed with deadly weapons like sickles, dagger and bill hook with a common object to attack the deceased. In pursuance of their common object, all the accused went near the house of deceased No.1 situated near PWD bungalow, witnessed that all the inmates of the house were sleeping infront of the house on cots. L.Ws.3 and 4 namely
P. Nagaraju and P. Brahmaiah who were present near the agricultural market yard on their night duty witnessed the accused No.1 to 5 have got down from the said Maruthi van and were proceeding towards the house of deceased No.1. Accused Nos.1 to 5 reached the cots of deceased No.1 and deceased No.2, who is the father of deceased No.1, and L.Ws.1 and 2 namely B. Suresh and B. Venkata Lakshumamma with their respective weapons, dealt severe blows on deceased Nos.1 and 2 violently. When deceased No.1 raised cries and tried to ran away inside
S.C.No.400/2011 II A.D.J. Court, Pdtr.6 the house to rescue herself, the accused No.1 hacked the deceased
No.1 indiscriminately and cut the tuft of deceased No.1 and hacked her , for which the deceased No.1 sustained severe bleeding injuries and died spontaneously in the pool of blood. Again all accused dealt blows with their respective weapons on the head, face, hands and other parts of the body of deceased No.2, caused severe bleeding injuries and due to which the deceased No.2 fell unconscious. All accused dealt blows with their respective weapons, caused bleeding injuries on the face of
L.W.2/B. Venkata Lakshumma and caused bleeding injuries on her both lips, left hand and head. All the accused also attacked L.W.1/B. Suresh with their weapons and caused bleeding injuries on his left forearm and right arm. L.W.1 who witnessed the acts of accused ran away from the scene of offence for some distance. In the illumination of passing of vehicles on highway road, L.W.2 identified the accused. All the accused presumed that they might have killed the deceased Nos.1 and 2 and left the scene of offence along with their weapons, boarded into the van and went away towards Kadapa side. On hearing the cries from the scene of offence, L.Ws.5 and 6 namely M. Samuel Babu and M. Venkata
Subbamma woke up and witnessed the accused Nos.1 to 5 were attacking the deceased Nos.1 and 2 and L.Ws.1 and 2. Out of fear they went inside the house. After some time, came to the scene of offence, witnessed the deceased No.1 was found with bleeding injuries and L.W.1 took the L.W.2 and deceased No.2 to Khajipeta P.S. All the accused after leaving the scene of offence, L.W.1 came and witnessed the same immediately shifted L.W.2, deceased No.2 to Khajipeta P.S. in an auto rickshaw and gave report before the police in which the S.I. of Police registered a case in Cr.No.45/2005 U/s. 147, 148, 324, 307, 302 r/w. 149 of I.P.C.
S.C.No.400/2011 II A.D.J. Court, Pdtr.7
During the course of investigation, on 20.05.2005 at about 1.00 p.m., the Inspector of Police, Mydukur Rural along with his staff and panchayatdars arrested the accused Nos.1 to 3 at Khader Bungalow cross road situated on Sidhout, Venkatayapalli road under cover of panchananama. Basing on the confessional statements of accused
Nos.1 to 3, they voluntarily lead the police and panchayatdars to the cheeki bushes situated to the western side of Chennur bridge situated on Kadapa – Kurnool, N.H.18 road from there accused Nos.1 to 3 voluntarily produced three sickles, one bill hook and one dagger and the same were seized under cover of panchanama and sent the accused to the concerned Magistrate for judicial remand. On 21.05.2005, the
Investigating Officer seized the Maruthi Omni Van bearing No.AP03-9009 at about 3.00 p.m., from the house of L.W.14/K. Kishore at Rayachoty.
On 30.05.2005 at 12.30 p.m., the Investigating Officer arrested the accused No.5 at RTC bus-stand, Rayachoty and sent him to the concerned Magistrate for judicial remand. On 06.07.2005 at about 9.00 a.m., while the Investigating officer was present at the Khajipeta Police
Station, accused No.4 voluntarily surrendered before him and he arrested the accused No.4 and sent him to the concerned Magistrate for judicial remand.
The Medical Officer, Govt. Hospital, Kadapa who examined the injured i.e., L.Ws.1 and 2 issued wound certificates and opined that the injuries on both the persons were simple in nature. The Medical Officer who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased No.1, issued postmortem certificate and opined that the deceased No.1 would appear to have died of due to haemorrhage's and shock due to multiple injuries. The Professor, Forensic Medicine Department who got conducted autopsy over the dead body of deceased No.2, who
S.C.No.400/2011 II A.D.J. Court, Pdtr.8 succumed to injuries at Head quarters hospital, Kurnool on 06.05.2005 at 12.30 p.m. and issued post mortem report and opined that the deceased No.2 would appear to have died of due to brain damage and intra corocial hemorrhage resulting from the skull fractures due to head injury. Basing on the requisition of Investigating Officer, the IIIrd Addl.
Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa conducted test identification parade of accused Nos.2 to 5 through L.W.2 in which L.W.2 identified accused
Nos.2 to 5. After receiving all the incriminating material, the
Investigating Officer laid charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 to 7.
Hence, the charge.
2. The above said case was taken cognizance by the learned Judicial
Magistrate of First Class, Proddatur for the offence U/s. 147, 148, 324,
302 r/w. 149 of I.P.C. and furnished copies of the documents to the accused Nos.1 to 5 as required U/s. 207 Cr.P.C. and when examined they stated before him that they have capacity to engage a counsel to defend themselves in the Sessions Court. As the offence U/Sec.302, 307 of I.P.C. is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned
Magistrate committed the case to the Principal District & Sessions Court,
Kadapa vide P.R.C.No.63/2008 U/s. 209 Cr.P.C. for trial.
3. The Hon’ble Principal District & Sessions Judge, Kadapa registered the above said P.R.C. as S.C.No.400/2011 and made over the same to this Court for trial on the point of jurisdiction.
4. After receiving the case records, summons were issued to the accused and they appeared before this Court. After a careful consideration and upon hearing both the prosecution and defence, this court framed charges U/s. 302 of I.P.C. against the accused No.1, U/s.
302 r/w. 149 of I.P.C. against the accused Nos.2 and 3 and U/s.148, 302, 307 r/w. 149 and 324 r/w. 149 of I.P.C. against accused Nos.1 to 3, read
S.C.No.400/2011 II A.D.J. Court, Pdtr.9 over and explained to them in telugu language U/s 228 of Cr.P.C., for which they pleaded not guilty for the said charges and claimed to be tried. Hence, case is posted for trial.
5. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, they have chosen to examine P.Ws.1 to 18 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.27. No material objects were marked. The Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of L.W.4 – P. Brahmaiah, L.W.11 – B. Kotaiah, L.W.12 – E.
Subramanyam Reddy, L.W.15 – Kaveti Devi, L.W.16 – S. Subbamma,
L.W.17 – G. Veera Reddy, L.W.18 – T. Chandra Sekhar Reddy, L.W.20 – M.
Balaswamy, L.W.21 – S. Chennaiah, L.W.22 – S. Ramaiah, L.W.23 – Mothi
Hussainaiah, L.W.24 – P. Chinna Dasthagiri, L.W.26 – Shaik Nazeer,
L.W.29 – M.S.R.K. Prasad, L.W.30 – K. Rangantham, L.W.32 – Court Clerk,
L.W.33 – A. Sreeramulu and L.W.34 – Kum. P. RAdhamma as the material witnesses not supported the version of the prosecution. On behalf of the defence, none were got examined and no documentary evidence was produced.
6.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined U/s.313 of Cr.P.C. for the incriminating circumstances appeared against them and they denied the allegations therein. The case of the accused is one of the total denial of their involvement in the offences alleged against them. The accused did not chose to let in any evidence on their behalf.
7.Heard the arguments on both the sides.
8.Now the points for determination are:-
1. Whether the accused Nos.1 to 3 were the members of unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object and killed the deceased Nos.1 and 2 by means of deadly weapons as sought to be contended by the prosecution?
S.C.No.400/2011 II A.D.J. Court, Pdtr.10
2. Whether the accused Nos.1 to 3 made an attempt on the file of
P.Ws.1 and 2 by causing injuries with deadly weapons with an intention to murder them as sought to be contended by the prosecution?
3. Whether the accused Nos.1 to 3 formed unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons as sought to be contended by the prosecution?
4. Whether the accused Nos.1 to 3 voluntarily caused simple injuries over P.Ws.1 and 2 with deadly weapons as sought to be contended by the prosecution ?
5. Whether the prosecution established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt?
9.After perusal of the entire evidence on record, it is not necessary to re-produce the entire oral and documentary evidence. Both the oral and documentary evidence will be referred as and when to the extent required.
POINT Nos.1 to 4 :-
10. When coming to the evidence, P.W.1/Balasani Suresh, who is the defacto complainant, eye witness to the occurrence and also sustained injuries has deposed that the deceased Nos.1 and 2 are his sister and father respectively and he do not know the accused Nos.1 to 3 who are present before this Court. He further deposed that about 13 years back on 4th day of May, the deceased Nos.1 and 2 were died. On the date of incident during night time, himself, his mother, both deceased were slept infront of their house and during night time some unidentified persons came to them and beat all of them. Himself and his mother i.e.,
P.W.2 received injuries and whereas the deceased No.1 was died on the spot due to injuries sustained to her and the deceased No.1 was died at
Govt. Hospital, Kurnool after three days of the incident due to the injuries received by him. He do not know about the persons who caused injuries either to both the deceased of himself of his mother. After the
S.C.No.400/2011 II A.D.J. Court, Pdtr.11 death of deceased Nos.1 and 2, the police came to him and obtained his signature on the written papers, but he do not know its contents. As the witness denied the contents of the report and identified his signature only and the signature portion on the report is only marked as Ex.P.1.
He also deposed that police did not examine him. He did not allege anything against the accused, on the other hand, he exhibited hostile nature, as such after necessary permission the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor cross-examined him and the relevant portion in Sec. 161
Cr.P.C. statement is marked as Ex.P.2.
11.P.W.2/B. Venkata Lakshmamma who is the mother of deceased
No.1 and P.W.1 and wife of deceased No.2 has also deposed in the same lines as that of P.W.1 and she specifically stated that she do not know the persons who murdered the deceased Nos.1 and 2 and caused injuries to them. P.W.2 further deposed that at the request of police, she went to Central Prison, Kadapa to identify the culprits, but he did not identify any of the culprits who committed the murder of deceased
Nos.1 and 2 and caused injuries to herself and P.W.1. P.Ws.3 to 10 namely T. Naga Raju, M. Samuel Babu, N. Venkata Subbaiah, P.
Subbarayudu, M. Venkata Subbamma, T. Lakshmi Narasamma, P.
Nagamma and K. Kondaiah who alleged to have eye witness to the offence have deposed in one voice that they do not know any of the accused Nos.1 to 3 who are present before this Court and they do not know when both the deceased were died. They further stated that they did not know anything about this case and they never witnessed anything about this case. P.Ws.2 to 10 did not speak anything adverse against the accused. Thus they were cross-examined by the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor and the relevant portions in their Sec. 161
Cr.P.C. statements were marked as Ex.P.3 to P.11 respectively.
S.C.No.400/2011 II A.D.J. Court, Pdtr.12
12.P.W.11/K. Kishore, who is the owner of the crime vehicle alleged to have used in the commission of offence by the accused Nos.1 to 3, he deposed that he do not know the accused No.1 and as the police seized his van, he obtained interim custody of the van through Court and he do not know the facts of the case. He did not allege anything against the accused No.1, on the other hand, he exhibited hostile nature, as such after necessary permission the learned Additional Public Prosecutor cross-examined him and the relevant portion in Sec. 161 Cr.P.C.
statement is marked as Ex.P.12.
13.P.W.12/R. Ramana Reddy, who is the inquestdar has deposed that he was present at the time of inquest over the dead body of the deceased No.1/K. Subbarathnamma and during the course of inquest, they came to an opinion that the deceased No.1 might have been died due to the injuries received by her. Ex.P.13 is the inquest report of deceased No.1 on which he signed.
14.P.W.13/Dr. S.R. Rajeswari,who is the Civil Assistant Surgeon, Govt.
Hospital, Kadapa has deposed that on 04.05.2005, she examined
P.W.1/Balasani Suresh and found two simple injuries which are mentioned in the wound certificate of P.W.1, caused by blunt object with sharp edge. Ex.P.14 is the wound certificate issued by her for the injuries of P.W.1. P.W.13 further deposed that on the same day i.e., on 04.05.2005, she examined P.W.2/Balasani Lakshmamma and found five simple injuries which are mentioned in the wound certificate of P.W.2.
Ex.P.15 is the wound certificate issued by her for the injuries of P.W.2.
15.P.W.14/B. Hussainaiah, has deposed that he was present at the time of inquest over the dead body of the deceased No.2/Balasani
Lakshmaiah on 07.05.2005 at Government Hospital, Kurnool and they opined that the deceased No.2 might have been died due to the injuries
S.C.No.400/2011 II A.D.J. Court, Pdtr.13 received by him. Ex.P.16 is the inquest report of the deceased No.2 on which he signed.
16.P.W.15/Dr. M. Subba Krishna, who is the Civil Assistant Surgeon,
Government Hospital, Kadapa has deposed that on 04.05.2005, he conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased No.1/K. Subba
Rathnamma and found the internal and external injuries noted down in the post mortem report. He opined that the deceased would appear to have died of hemorrhagic and shock due to multiple injuries. The time of death is less than 24 hours prior to his examination. He issued post mortem report of the deceased No.1 which is marked as Ex.P.17.
17.P.W.16/K. Abraham Lincon, the then Village Servant of
Thudumuladinne village has deposed that on 20.05.2015, he was present along with the police at the time of arrest of three persons in this case. The police arrested the three persons at Siddavatam main road and police examined them and recorded their statements under the cover of panchanama on which he signed. He further deposed that he cannot identify the persons who are arrested by the police on that day due to long gap of time. Ex.P.18 is the arrest panchanama on which he signed. After completion of Ex.P.18, the arrested persons lead them to Chennur bridge and produced three sickles, one knife and one dagger and the police seized the same under cover of recovery panchanama on which he signed. Ex.P.19 is the recovery panchanama dated 20.05.2005. During his cross-examination, he admitted that he cannot say the contents of Ex.P.18 and P.19.
18.P.W.17/E. Bala Swamy Reddy, the then Sub Inspector of Police,
Khajipeta Police Station has deposed that on 04.05.2005 at about 1.00 a.m., P.W.1/B. Suresh came to police station along with P.W.2/B. Venkata
Lakshmamma and one Balasani Lakshmaiah and gave statement and he
S.C.No.400/2011 II A.D.J. Court, Pdtr.14 recorded the same and obtained his signature under Ex.P.20. Basing on the same, he got registered a case in Cr.No.45/2005 U/s. 302, 307, 324 r/w. 34 of I.P.C. and submitted Ex.P.21/original F.I.R. to the jurisdictional
Magistrate Court and also issued Express F.I.R. to the concerned
authorities. He examined the material witnesses, seized the wearing apparel of P.Ws.1, 2 and Balasani Lakshmaiah who are the injured persons under cover of Ex.P.22/recovery panchanama and later he forwarded them to Government Hospital, Kadapa for treatment.
He further deposed that on the same day he visited the scene of offence which is situated in the house of deceased No.1/K.
Subbarathnamma at Pathur village and found the dead body of the deceased No.1 with multiple injuries. Then he secured the presence of material witnesses and mediators and conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased No.1 and also recorded the statements of material witnesses. Subsequently, he handed over the dead body of the deceased No.1 to Govt. hospital, Kadapa for autopsy. Thereafter he observed the scene of offence and drafted rough sketch of the scene of offence under Ex.P.23. He visited the Govt. Hospital, Kadapa and secured the presence of P.Ws.1 and 2, examined them and recorded their statements U/s. 161 of Cr.P.C. Thereafter the further investigation was conducted by Inspector of Police.
19.P.W.18/A. Rama Chandra,the then Inspector of Police, Mydukur
Rural Circle has deposed that after receiving the part of investigation conducted by P.W.17, he took investigation in this case and during the course of investigation, he visited the scene of offence and recorded the statements of material witnesses. After receiving the death intimation of deceased No.2/Balasani Lakshumaiah from Government Hospital,
Kurnool on 07.05.2005, he visited the said hospital and conducted
S.C.No.400/2011 II A.D.J. Court, Pdtr.15 inquest over the dead body of the deceased No.2 in the presence of
P.W.1 and other mediators and after completion of the same he forwarded the dead body of deceased No.2 for autopsy. He also examined some more material witnesses and on 20.05.2005, he arrested the accused Nos.1 to 3 and recorded their confessional statements under cover of Ex.P.18/panchanama. Basing on the confession of accused Nos.1 to 3, they lead them to Chennur Bridge and accused Nos.1 to 3 produced three sickles, one bill hook and one dagger and they seized the same under cover of Ex.P.19/recovery panchanama and subsequently produced the accused Nos.1 to 3 before the concerned Magistrate court for judicial custody. On the same day, he visited Rayachoty and seized the crime vehicle i.e., Maruthi Omni Van bearing No.AP03-9009 under cover of police proceedings which is marked as Ex.P.24. On 30.05.2005, he visited Rayachoty and arrested accused No.5 and produced him before the Magistrate Court for judicial custody.
P.W.18 further deposed that on 04.06.2005, he filed a requisition
before the III Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa to conduct test
identification parade of accused Nos.1 to 3 and 5. Thereafter on 06.07.2005, the accused No.4 surrendered before him at Khajipeta P.S.
and after confirming his identity, he arrested the accused No.4 and produced before the Magistrate Court for judicial custody. On 11.06.2005, he visited Mahanandi and secured the presence of material witnesses and recorded their statements. On 06.08.2005, he received the copy of test identification parade of accused Nos.2 to 5 and the test identification parade was conducted by III Addl. Junior Civil Judge,
Kadapa and Ex.P.25 is the test identification proceedings. After receipt
S.C.No.400/2011 II A.D.J. Court, Pdtr.16 of postmortem report, RFSL report and after completion of entire investigation, he laid charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 to 5.
20.As per the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, who are the blood relatives of the deceased Nos.1 and 2 and also injured in the alleged incident,
P.Ws.3 to 10 who are the eye witness and circumstantial witnesses they did not state anything against the accused. It clearly shows that they might have compromised with the accused out of the Court, as such they have not supported the version of the prosecution. This Court questioned them whether anybody threatened or coerced to give evidence in favour of the accused, for which they have deposed that no one threatened or coerced to give evidence in favour of the accused and they are deposing voluntarily without any force. The Supreme Court in
Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab (2) (2008) 4 SCC 582
held as under:
“We need to emphasize that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the Court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the Courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilized in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law.”
21.P.W.11 who is the owner of the Maruthi Van which was used by the accused in the commission of offence also clearly stated that he donot know the accused No.1 and he do not know the facts of the case.
Hence, his evidence is no way helpful to the connect the case. P.W.16 is the panchayatdar at the time of arrest of accused Nos.1 to 3 and seizure
S.C.No.400/2011 II A.D.J. Court, Pdtr.17 of the material objects from the possession of the accused Nos.1 to 3, but he did not identify the accused Nos.1 to 3 before this Court. He further stated that he cannot say the contents of Ex.P.18 and Ex.P.9 panchanamas. Hence, his evidence is no way helpful to the case of prosecution.
22.Thus, as seen from the above evidence, it is crystal clear the direct as well as circumstantial witnesses did not support the prosecution and they exhibited hostile nature. In the absence of their evidence, the evidence of other witnesses at the time of inquest, arrest of accused by the police is of no consequence. Though it is established by the prosecution that the deceased died of injuries through the post mortem certificate and inquest report, but there is no material to show that accused Nos.1 to 3 inflicted those injuries resulting in the death of the deceased. Thus, the prosecution miserably failed to produce any material establishing the accused Nos.1 to 3 were the members of an unlawful assembly arming with deadly weapons in prosecution of the common object murdered the deceased Nos.1 and 2 and also made an attempt on the life of P.Ws.1 and 2 and caused injuries to them as contended by it. Hence, these points are answered against the prosecution and in favour of the accused.
POINT NO.5:-
23.In view of the discussion and findings rendered under point No.1 to 4 what is manifest is the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, this point is also answered against the prosecution.
24.In the result, the accused Nos.1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offences punishable U/s. 302 of I.P.C. against the accused No.1, U/s. 302 r/w. 149 of I.P.C. against the accused Nos.2 and 3 and U/s.148, 302, 307
S.C.No.400/2011 II A.D.J. Court, Pdtr.18 r/w. 149 and 324 r/w. 149 of I.P.C. against accused Nos.1 to 3 and consequently they are acquitted u/s. 235 (1) of Cr.P.C. The Maruthi Van bearing No.AP03-9009 which was already returned to its owner for interim custody shall be holds good till the disposal of the split up case against accused No.5. The valuable and non-valuable property if any shall be kept intact till the disposal of the split up case against accused
No.5. The bail bonds of the accused Nos.1 to 3 shall be in force for a period of six months.
Typed to my dictation by the Grade-II Stenographer, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open court, this the 29th day, of March, 2019.
Sd/- G. Manohara Reddy
II ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE
KADAPA AT PRODDATUR
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined for Prosecution;
PW.1 : Balasani Suresh.
PW.2 : Balasani Venkata Lakhmamma.
PW.3 : T. Naga Raju.
PW.4 : M. Samuel Babu.
PW.5 : N. Venkata Subbaiah.
PW.6 : P. Subbarayudu.
PW.7 : Mangali Venkata Subbamma.
PW.8 : T. Lakshmi Narasamma.
PW.9 : P. Nagamma.
PW.10: K. Kondaiah.
PW.11: K. Kishore.
PW.12: R. Ramana Reddy.
PW.13: Dr. S.R. Rajeswari.
PW.14: B. Hussainaiah.
PW.15: Dr. M. Subba Krishna.
PW.16: A. Abraham Lincon.
PW.17: E. Bala Swami Reddy.
PW.18: A. Rama Chandra.
Witnesses examined for defence
-Nil-
S.C.No.400/2011 II A.D.J. Court, Pdtr.19
Exhibits marked for prosecution
Ex.P.1 : Signature of P.W.1 in the report, dated 04.05.2005.
Ex.P.2 : Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1.
Ex.P.3 : Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.2.
Ex.P.4 : Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.3.
Ex.P.5 : Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.4.
Ex.P.6 : Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.5.
Ex.P.7 : Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.6.
Ex.P.8 : Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.7.
Ex.P.9 : Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.8.
Ex.P.10: Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.9.
Ex.P.11: Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.10.
Ex.P.12: Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.11.
Ex.P.13: Inquest report of deceased No.1.
Ex.P.14: Wound certificate of P.W.1.
Ex.P.15: Wound certificate of P.W.2.
Ex.P.16: Inquest report of deceased No.2.
Ex.P.17: Postmortem certificate of deceased No.1.
Ex.P.18: Arrest panchanama dated 20.05.2005.
Ex.P.19: Recovery panchanama dated 20.05.2005.
Ex.P.20: Statement of P.W.1 recorded by P.W.17.
Ex.P.21: Original F.I.R. in Cr.No.45 of 2005 of Khajipeta P.S.
Ex.P.22: Seizure panchanama, dated 04.05.2005.
Ex.P.23: Rough sketch of the scene of offence.
Ex.P.24: Police proceedings, dated 21.05.2005.
Ex.P.25: Test identification proceedings.
Ex.P26: R.F.S.L. Report.
Ex.P27: Postmortem certificate of deceased No.2.
Exhibits marked for defence: N I L.
Material objects marked: N I L.
Sd/- G. Manohara Reddy
II Addl. Sessions Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur.