Sri G.Mohan Kumar

1 fair

IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS: SESSIONS DIVISION : KADAPA

BEFORE THE V ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE:AT RAYACHOTY.

Present: Sri M.Tirumala Rao, B.Com.,B.L., V Additional Sessions Judge, Rayachoty.

Monday, the 28th day of March, 2016.

Sessions Case No. 374 / 2013.

State represented by Inspector of Police,

Rayachoty Rural Circle.

Name of the Complainant Cr.No. 181 of 2012 of Sambepalli police

Station.

1. Galiveeti Venugopal Naidu, son of Kadirappa Naidu, aged about 35 years Nayanivaripalli village h/o Dudyala, Sambepalli Mandal. Name of the Accused.

2. Guriginjakunta Vasudeve Naidu son of mallaiah, aged abaout 27 years, Nayanivaripalli village h/o Dudyala Sambepalli Mandal.

3.Guriginjakunta Malikarjuna Naidu @ Malikarjuna son of Veeramallaiah, aged aboaut 32 years, Nayanivaripalli village h/o Dudyala, Sambepalli Mandal.

U/Sec. 302 IPC: Murder

C h a r g e s U/Sec.201 IPC: Causing disappearance of evidence of an offence committed, or giving false information touching it to screen the offender.

Plea of the accused Not guilty V Addl. sessions Judge, Rayachoty S.C.No. 374/2013(Sec.302 &201 IPC)

Finding of the Judge Accused 1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offences U/secs. 302 and 201 r/w 34 IPC.

2 fair

Sentence of the Judge In the result, the accused 1 to 3 are found not guilty and they are acquitted under Sec.235 (1) of Cr.P.C. for the offences under Sec. 302 and Sec.201 IPC with which they were charge sheeted and the accused are directed to be set at liberty. The bail bond of the accused and that of their sureties shall stand cancelled after appeal time is over.

Under Section 452 of Cr.P.C M.Os. 1 to 3 which are plastic thread and blood stained trousers, worthless, shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Prosecution conducted by: Sri. U.Venkata Swamy

Additional Public Prosecutor

Accused defended by: Sri. V.C. Reddeppa Reddy Advocate for accused 1 to 3.

V Additional District Judge, Rayachoty.

This case coming on 24.03.2016 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri. U. Venkata Swamy Additional Public Prosecutor for the Complainant – State: and of Sri V.C. Reddappa Reddy, counsel for the accused 1 to 3, having stood over for consideration to this date, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The State represented by the Inspector of Police, Rayachoty laid charge sheet against the accused 1 to 3 for the offences Under sections

V Addl. sessions Judge, Rayachoty S.C.No. 374/2013(Sec.302 &201 IPC) 02 and 201 r/w 34 IPC in Crime No. 181/2012 of Sambepalli P.S. alleging that on 30.11.2012 at about 8.30 PM near Chakalivanibavi situated in Veeramallaiah fields at Nayanivaripalli village, A1 to A3 conspired together and did commit the murder by intentionally causing the death 3 fair of Veera Mallaiah for the reason that prior to the incident A1 was having developed illicit intimacy with wife of the deceased namely Mudi

Suseela and he used to visit the house of the deceased and fulfil his sexual lust with Mudi Suseela, on noticing the same, the deceased

Veera Mallaiah chastised A1 and warned him who came to notice on A1 through the wife of the deceased, then A1 to A3 planned and conspired together on the given time A1 pushed the deceased on the ground, closed his mouth and squeezed his throat, A2 cought hold the hands of the deceased and A3 caught hold of the legs of the deceased and all of them committed murder of the deceased. Police registered the case and investigated into, filed charge sheet against the accused 1 to 3 for the offences under Secs. 302 and 201 IPC.

02.The learned Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Rayachoty took cognizance of the case for the offences under Secs.

302 and 201 r/w 34 IPC in P.R.C 28/2013 and after appearance of accused and after complying with the established procedure under section 207, Cr.P.C., as the offence U/sec. 302 of IPC is exclusively triable by the court of Session, this case is committed to the court of

Sessions, Kadapa by the learned Addl. Judicial Magistrate of Ist Class,

Rayachoty, under Section 209, Cr.P.C.

03.The Honourable Principal District and Sessions Judge.

Kadapa took cognizance of this case for the offences U/secs. 302 and 201 r/w 34 IPC in Sessions Case Number 374/2013 and made over this case to the court of V Addl. Sessions Judge, Rayachoty for disposal according to Law.

V Addl. sessions Judge, Rayachoty S.C.No. 374/2013(Sec.302 &201 IPC)

04.After receipt of the case record and after appearance of the complainant as well as the accused and after hearing the arguments on behalf of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and defence counsel and as there are sufficient grounds for proceeding further against the accused, charges under Secs. 302 and Sec. 201

IPC have been framed, read over the explained to these accused in 4 fair Telugu, for which, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During the course of trial, the prosecution examined

P.W.1 to P.W.14, marked Exs. P.1 to P.19 and Material Objects 1 to 3 and no witnesses were examined by the defence . The learned

Addl. P.P. given up the rest of the prosecution witnesses as of no use.

06. After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., by putting the incriminating material available in the evidence of P.W9, P.W.10, P.W.13 & PW14 for which the accused denied the evidence as false and did not wish to examine any defence witnesses on their behalf under Sec 232 of Cr.P.C.

Heard both sides.

07.Now, the point for determination is:

Whether the complainant proved the charges

against the accused 1 to 3 for the offence under

Section 302 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt or

not?

Whether the complainant proved the charges

against the accused 1 to 3 for the offence under

U/Sec. 201 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt or

not?

08.It is specific case of prosecution that on 30.11.2012 at about 8.30 PM near Chakalivanibavi situated in

Veeramallaiah fields (V Addl. sessions Judge, Rayachoty

S.C.No. 374/2013(Sec.302 &201 IPC) deceased fields) at Nayanivaripalli village, A1 to A3 conspired together and did commit the murder by intentionally causing the death of Veera Mallaiah for the reason that prior to the incident A1 was having developed illicit intimacy with wife of the deceased namely Mudi Suseela and he used to visit the house of the deceased and fulfil his sexual lust with Mudi Suseela, on noticing the same, the deceased Veera Mallaiah chastised A1 and warned him who came to notice on A1 through the wife of the deceased, then A1 to A3 planned and conspired together on the given time A1 pushed the deceased on the ground, closed his mouth and 5 fair squeezed his throat, A2 caught hold the hands of the deceased and

A3 caught hold of the legs of the deceased and all of them committed murder of the deceased. Hence, police registered a case in Cr.NO. 181/2012 for the offences under Secs. 302 and 201 r/w 34 IPC. For which the defence of A1 to A3 is one of the false and total denial.

09.To buttress the case of the prosecution herein, the prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.14, got marked Exs.P1 to P19 and Material Objects 1 to 3. Out of which P.W.1 who is wife of the deceased, PW.2 who is the cousin of the deceased, PW.3 to PW.8 are witnesses have not supported the prosecution case that nothing was happened as narrated by the prosecution and that A1 to A3 have nothing to do with the alleged offence of death of the deceased and that the deceased who is the husband of PW.1 was a habitual drunkard and consumed heavy alcohol and due to that he committed suicide by hanging himself and since PW.1 to P.W.8 turned hostile to the case of prosecution. Having no option, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor declared P.W.1 to P.W.8 are hostile and on permission they were cross examined at length and could not succeed to elicit any useful information

V Addl. sessions Judge, Rayachoty S.C.No. 374/2013(Sec.302 & 201 IPC) in favour of the prosecution and that they denied that they stated

before the police as in Exs.P2 to P9 are their detailed 161 Cr.P.C.

statements. The signature of P.W.1 is marked as Ex.P1 and she denied the contents of her alleged report to the police.

10.P.W.9 and P.W.10 who are working as V.R.Os.

acted as mediations before whom A1 to A3 after committing murder approached them and narrated the incident in which A1 was having illicit intimacy with P.W.1 who is the wife of the deceased, on that when the deceased grew wild against P.W-1 and

A1, on such rebleness A1 committed murder of the deceased, for which A2 and A3 helped them. This confession was recorded under 6 fair a cover of mediatornama is marked as Ex.P11 in which both of them attested.

11.PW-11 is another mediator for the arrest of the accused and confessional statement of the accused under Ex.P11 did not support the case of prosecution and he was declared as hostile and on permission he was cross examination and could not succeed to elicit to useful information in favour of the prosecution and his signature in Ex.P11 confessional statement is marked as

Ex.P.12.

12.PW-12 is one of the inquestdar, did not support the prosecution case he denied the contents of inquestnama, and he was declared as hostile his signature is marked as Ex.P13.

13.PW-13 is another inquestdar who supported the case of prosecution that the Sub Inspector of police conducted inquest in his presence and in the presence of others and inquestnama was marked as Ex.P.14.

V Addl. sessions Judge, Rayachoty S.C.No. 374/2013(Sec.302 &201 IPC)

14.PW-14 who is the then Sub Inspector of police,

Sambepalli police station deposed that on 01.12.2012 at about 11 am., he received a report from PW-1 and registered the same as a case in Cr.No.181/2012 initially under Sec.174 of Cr.P.C is marked as Ex.P15 and sent the First Information Report to the court and all concerned. Then he visited the scene of offence, observed the same under cover of observation report and seized MO-1 plastic thread in the presence of PW-12 and PW-13 under caller of observation report is marked as Ex.P16. Thereafter he conducted inquestnama over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of PW-12 and PW-13, kith and kin and relatives under cover of

Ex.P14 inquestnama and obtained the signatures of all the concerned parties and also seized MO-2 full shirt of the deceased and M0-3 white pancha. Thereafter he sent the 7 fair deadbody to the Govt., hospital for Post Mortem examination and the Govt., Doctor who issued Post Mortem certificate is marked as

Ex.P17. At that time he has secured all the witnesses and examined them and recorded their detailed statements in his Part-II

CD file as Verbatim under Exs.P2 to P9. Basing on the investigation done by him, he altered the section of law from Sec.

174 Cr.P.C suspicious death to Section 302 IPC r/w 34 IPC and issued altered First Information Report under Ex.P18 and he prepared rough sketch is marked as Ex.P19. As the offence under

Sec. 302 IPC is a grave in nature, his Circle Inspector of police took up the further investigation and he arrested A1 to A3 and sent them to Judicial Custody for remand and later they were released on bail and he verified the investigation and found it on correct lines and filed charge sheet against the accused 1 to 3.

15. Except PW-9 and PW-10 i.e., two V.R.Os before whom these accused 1 to 3 allegedly confessed about the commission of

V Addl. sessions Judge, Rayachoty S.C.No. 374/2013(Sec.302 &201 IPC) offence in murdering the deceased and such confession was recorded by the police but when it comes to ocular evidencelet in by the prosecution i.e., PW-1 to PW-8, no one of the prosecution witnesses spelt out any incriminating material against these accused in committing these offences. Even the deceased own wife who was examined as PW-1 is completely SOMER SALT to case of the prosecution that there was hand in glow of A1 to A3 in committing the murder of the deceased herein.

16.In the absence of any incriminating piece of evidence let in by the prosecution witnesses i.e., PW-1 to PW-8 any amount of confession spelt out by A1 to A3 before PW-9 and

PW-10 who are two mediators is not a substantiate piece of evidence and this piece of evidence alone is not sufficient enough 8 fair to come to conclusion that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Since it is the case of hanky panky in which the deceased suspected fidelity of PW-1 with A1, the police might have charge sheeted these accused.

Nothing was elicited nor established from the evidence of PW-1 to

PW-14 to prove the guilt of these accused.

17.It is axiomatic to say that as there is no substantial piece of evidence to connect the accused in committing the offences as alleged in this case, and in view of the hostility expressed by PW-1 to PW-8, PW-11 and PW-12 and since

PW.1 to PW.8 veered round roll back and SOMER Salt to the case of prosecution, and , it cannot be possible to say that the accused have nexus with the crime as alleged and hence the prosecution has failed to establish the ingredients of offences under section

U/secs. 302 and 201 IPC as no one of the prosecution

V Addl. sessions Judge, Rayachoty S.C.No. 374/2013(Sec.302 &201 IPC) witnesses spelt-out any one of the ingredients attracting the above offences. No one of the prosecution witnesses stated about the involvement and guilt of the accused in committing these offences.

18. There is no ring of truthing from the evidence of

P.Ws.1 to PW.14 to believe the version of prosecution to say that the accused are liable for conviction. The serious contention of the prosecution that A1 to A3 planned and conspired together, A1 pushed the deceased on the ground, closed his mouth and squeezed his throat, A2 caught hold the hands of the deceased and

A3 caught hold of the legs of the deceased and all of them committed murder of the deceased, is nothing but intuition, half

truth, and ring true on which basis the accused are not

found guilty as it was based upon sans evidence.

19.Considering theocularandimpeccable evidence that was placed by the prosecution, this Court do not 9 fair have any hesitation and stead-fast to hold that the prosecution, in all the angles, has failed to establish all the ingredients for the offences under sections 302 and 201 IPC. It is therefore, the accused are not found guilty and accused are entitled for acquittal for the offences under sections 302 and 201 IPC.

20. In the result, the accused 1 to 3 are found not guilty and they are acquitted under Sec.235 (1) of Cr.P.C for the offences under Secs. 302 and 201 IPC with which they were charge sheeted and the accused are directed to be set at liberty. The bail bond of the accused and that of their sureties shall stand cancelled after appeal time is over.

V Addl. sessions Judge, Rayachoty S.C.No. 374/2013(Sec.302 &201 IPC)

Under Section 452 of Cr.P.C., M.Os. 1 to 3 which are blood stained trousers and worthless, shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation by the Typist, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 28th day of March,

2016.

V Additional Sessions Judge,

Rayachoty.

APPENDEX OF EVIDENCE

Witness Examined

For Prosecution: For

accused: None

PW1 : M.Suseela, PW2 : R.Ramanjaneyulu, PW3 : Y. Ramesh, PW4 : M.Krisnnaiah, PW5 : G. Subbaiah, 10 fair PW6 : M.Lakshmumaiah, PW7 : Y.Krishnaiah, PW8 : M.Obulesu, PW9 : B.Gangulaiah, PW10 : P.Lakshminarayana, PW11 : T.Sudhakar, PW12 : S. Amarnatha Reddy. PW13 : Shaik Gulab Jan, PW14 : S.Mahaboob Basha, S.I.,of Police.

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution:

Ex.P.1: Signature of PW-1 in the report, Ex.P.2: 161 Cr.P.C Statement of P.W-1,

V Addl. sessions Judge, Rayachoty S.C.No. 374/2013(Sec.302 &201 IPC)

Ex.P.3: 161 Cr.P.C Statement of P.W-2, Ex.P.4: 161 Cr.P.C Statement of P.W-3, Ex.P.5: 161 Cr.P.C Statement of P.W-4, Ex.P.6: 161 Cr.P.C Statement of P.W-5, Ex.P.7: 161 Cr.P.C Statement of P.W-6, Ex.P.8: 161 Cr.P.C Statement of P.W-7, Ex.P.9: 161 Cr.P.C Statement of P.W-8, Ex.P.10: Confession statement of A1 to A3 dated 23.12.2012 at 2 pm., Ex.P.11: Confession statement of A1 toA3 recorded by C.I. of police, Ex.P.12: Signature of PW-11 in the arrest and confession statement, Ex.P.13:Signature of PW-12 in the inquest panchanama dated.1.12.2012, Ex.P.14: Inquest Panchanama dated 01.12.2012, Ex.P.15: First Information Report, Ex.P.16: Scene observation report dated 01.12.2012 at 3.00 pm., Ex.P.17: Post Mortem Certificate, Ex.P.18: Altered First Information Report, Ex.P.19: Rough Sketch.

For Defence: NIL –

Material Objects Marked

11 fair

MO-1: Plastic thread,(Pattede)

MO-2: Blood stained full shirt,

MO-3: Blood stained Pancha.

V Additional Sessions Judge, Rayachoty.

12 fair

IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS: SESSIONS DIVISION : KADAPA

BEFORE THE V ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE:AT RAYACHOTY.

Present: Sri M.Tirumala Rao, B.Com.,B.L., V Additional Sessions Judge, Rayachoty.

Monday, the 28th day of March, 2016.

Sessions Case No. 374 / 2013.

State represented by Inspector of Police,

Rayachoty Rural Circle.

Name of the Complainant Cr.No. 181 of 2012 of Sambepalli police

Station.

1. Galiveeti Venugopal Naidu, son of Kadirappa Naidu, aged about 35 years Nayanivaripalli village h/o Dudyala, Sambepalli Mandal. Name of the Accused.

2. Guriginjakunta Vasudeve Naidu son of mallaiah, aged abaout 27 years, Nayanivaripalli village h/o Dudyala Sambepalli Mandal.

3.Guriginjakunta Malikarjuna Naidu @ Malikarjuna son of Veeramallaiah, aged aboaut 32 years, Nayanivaripalli village h/o Dudyala, Sambepalli Mandal.

U/Sec. 302 IPC: Murder

C h a r g e s U/Sec.201 IPC: Causing disappearance of evidence of an offence committed, or giving false information touching it to screen the offender.

Plea of the accused Not guilty V Addl. sessions Judge, Rayachoty S.C.No. 374/2013(Sec.302 &201 IPC)

Finding of the Judge Accused 1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offences U/secs. 302 and 201 r/w 34 IPC.

Sentence of the Judge In the result, the accused 13 fair 1 to 3 are found not guilty and they are acquitted under Sec.235 (1) of Cr.P.C. for the offences under Sec. 302 and Sec.201 IPC with which they were charge sheeted and the accused are directed to be set at liberty. The bail bond of the accused and that of their sureties shall stand cancelled after appeal time is over.

Under Section 452 of Cr.P.C M.Os. 1 to 3 which are plastic thread and blood stained trousers, worthless, shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Prosecution conducted by: Sri. U.Venkata Swamy

Additional Public Prosecutor

Accused defended by: Sri. V.C. Reddeppa Reddy Advocate for accused 1 to 3.

V Additional Sessions Judge, Rayachoty 14 fair I.A.NO. 32 of 2016 MVOP.NO.707 of 2011.

28.4.2016.

Heard both sides. Perused the record.

In the circumstances, the main M.V.O.P. was filed for granting total amount of compensation for a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- and after respondent NO.2 is making appearance the matter is compromised before the Lok Adalat where an award was passed for Rs.1,50,000/- in favour of the petitioner. As per the terms of the Award the 2nde respondent being the insurance company deposited an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- to the credit of the main M.V.O.P. which amount is still lying unattachable.

In the above circumstances, the petitioner filed the present under R.231 to 234 of Civil Rules of Practice praying to issue a cheque for Rs.1,50,000/- in his favour for which a notice was given to the respondent No.3 notice was given to the respondent NO.2 he has endorsed no objection to issue a cheque. There is not legal impediment, stay or revision is pending against the cheque amount and since this amount is unatachable and since the counsel for the petitioner filed FS memo and since the counsel

for the respondent No.2 has

endorsed no objection. Hence, this court is satisfied to issue a cheque for Rs.1,50,000/- in favour of the petitioner by name Sri. Boyapati Umadevi w/o Subbaiah to his account bearing No. 35397421438 State Bank of India, Rajampet Branch, Kadapa district under proper acknowledgement and identification.

VADJ.

FAC III ADJ

fair1

IN THE COURT OF V ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

RAYACHOTY

Present:-Shri M.Tirumala Rao, B.Com.,B.L.,

V Additional Sessions Judge, Rayachoty.

Wednesday, this the 30th day of March, 2016.

Sessions Case No.191 of 2013

(PRC No. 18 of 2009 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Lakkireddi Palli)

State: Represented by the Inspector of Police, Lakkireddipalli police station.

... Complainant

Vs.

1. Koyalakuntla Prasad son of Narasimhulu, aged 20 years, Naguruvandlapalli village h/oNooliveedu, Galiveedu Mandal, Kadapa district.

2. Korakati Chakravathi son of Sreenivasulu.

(Case against A2 is separated as he is Juvenile in Conflict

with law)

... Accused.

This Sessions Case is coming on 12.01.2016 for final hearing before me in the presence of Additional Public Prosecutor for complainant and Sri C.Sunil Kumar Reddy, Advocate

for accused (as A2 is Juvenile in conflict with law the case

against A2 is separated and this case was proceeded

against the 1 st accused only) and upon hearing on both sides and upon perusal of available material on record, this Court delivered the following:

:: JUDGMENT ::

2 On perusal of available material on record, the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Lakkireddy took the cognizance of offence under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C against the accused in PRC No.18 of 2009 and after appearance of accused and after complying with the established procedure under Section 207 Cr.P.C as the offence under Section 302 I.P.C is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, this case is committed to the fair2

Court of Sessions, Kadapa by the learned Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Lakkireddypalli under Section 209 Cr.P.C.

3. The Honourable Principal District and Sessions

Judge, Kadapa took cognizance of this case for the offences under

Sections 302 and 201 r/w 34 IPC in Sessions Case No.191 of 2013 and made over to this case to the Court of V Additional Sessions

Judge, Rayachoty for disposal according to law.

4. After receipt of the case record and after appearance of the complainant as well as the accused and after hearing the arguments on behalf of the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor and defence counsel and as there are sufficient grounds for proceeding further against the accused, charges under Sections 302 and 201 IPC have been framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, for which, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 10 and marked Ex.P1 to P12 and no witnesses were examined on behalf of the defence. The learned Addl.P.P given up the rest of the prosecution witnesses as of no use.

6. After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C by putting the incriminating material available in the evidence of P.W.7, P.W.9 and P.W.10 for which the accused denied the evidence as false and did not wish to examine any defence witnesses on their behalf and submitted fair3 certified copy of judgment in C.C.No.37 of 2010 on the file of

Principal Magistrate for Juvenile Court, Kadapa

7. Heard both sides.

8. Now the point for determination is,

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of

the accused for the offences punishable under

Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C beyond all reasonable

doubt or not?

9. POINT:- It is the specific case of the prosecution is that on 21.7.2006 Bogeswaraiah (LW.2) went to Vempalli Bayareddy (L.W.1), V.R.O., and informed about his noticing the unidentified male dead body, on that he rushed there witnessed the same and later presented a report to the police who registered the same as a case in Cr.No.70 of 2006 of Galiveedu police station and issued FIR initially under Section 174 Cr.P.C and during investigation the police examined all the witnesses altered the section of law one from suspicious death under Section 174 Cr.P.C to Sections 302 I.P.C and 201 IPC and arrested A1 and A2 and conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased and observed the scene of offence sent the accused to the Court for remand after interrogating them who have voluntarily confessed about the offence and after receipt of postmortem examination report and other material he filed the charge sheet against the accused persons.

10. To buttress the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 10 and got marked Exs.P1 to P12.

Out of which P.W.1 is a retired Village Revenue Officer deposed that on coming to know about the dead body was partly buried in the earth he reported the matter to police under Ex.P1 dt.21.7.2006 and he along with police, M.R.O., and Government Doctor visited fair4 the scene of offence and noticed the dead body is a male one having two legs, stomach and part of the head were appeared.

Thereafter Bogswaraiah (P.W.2) VRA and Rajanna are buried the same after conducting the inquest and also postmortem examination.

11. P.W.3 is a direct witness turned hostile to the prosecution case and he deposed that he does not know anything and also the reasons as to the death of Veera Nagaiah and he was declared as hostile by the learned Addl.P.P. Who could not succeed to elicit any useful information on permission and his entire statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C is marked as Ex.P2.

12. P.Ws.4,5 and 6 who are inquestdars have deposed that they do not know anything about the contents of inquest proceedings and they were declared as hostile and their signatures are marked as Exs.P3, P4 and P5 respectively were signed by them in the police station.

13. P.W.7 who is the panchayat secretary deposed that on 04.9.2006 at about 10 a.m this accused appeared before him and confessed about the deceased borrowed several amounts from others including the accused and did not discharge the same and there was disputes arose in respect of the amounts. It is therefore the accused and others hatched a plan to kill Veera

Nagaiah and his confession was recorded by the police in his presence under Ex.P6 confession statement of the accused. On 20.9.2006 at 4 p.m the juvenile in conflict with law was arrested by the police who confessed about the commission of offence along with this accused and he was sent to Juvenile Court under the cover of Ex.P7 attested copy of confession statement.

fair5

14. P.W.8 is a Doctor who along with Sub Inspector of Police, Mandal Revenue Officer visited the scene of offence and noticed the dead body is partly buried in the earth exhumed it and issued provisional postmortem certificate under Ex.P8 and also seized some material objects and sent the same to RFSL and received final report is marked as Ex.P9 and opined as to cause of death is, no opinion can be given regarding the cause of death as the body is in advanced state of putrefaction, time of death is between 3 to 6 weeks prior to postmortem examination.

15. P.W.9 who is the Sub Inspector deposed that on 22.7.2006 at about 7 a.m he received a report from P.W.1 registered the same as a case in Cr.No.75 of 2006 and issued initial

FIR under Section 174 Cr.P.C as suspicious death marked as Ex.P10 and sent Ex.P10 to the court and to all the concerned. Later he sent a requisition to Mandal Revenue Officer, Galiveedu and

Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Rayachoty requesting them to visit the scene of offence for the purpose of exhuming the buried the dead body, accordingly, they visited the scene of offence and observed the same by them and Sub Inspector of Police observed the scene of offence and MRO conducting inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of mediators and seized the shirt and skull of the dead body for analysis . He has drafted rough sketch under Ex.p11 reburied the dead body on 18.8.2006 while

Koilakuntal Sai son of Rama Chandra gave oral statement which was reduced into writing by him about the hand of A1 and A2 in murdering the deceased accordingly, he altered the original FIR under Ex.P10 from Sec. 174 Cr.P.C into Sec.302 and Sec. 201 IPC fair6 and altered FIR is marked as Ex.P12

16. The offences under Section 302 IPC is grave in nature he handed over the copy of FIR to his successor who is

Circle Inspector who was examined as P.W.10 and he conducted investigation and found it on correct lines and examined the witnesses and verified the investigation done by P.W.9 and on 04.9.2006 he arrested A1 at Sandhya theatre, Kadapa examined him who in turn revealed about his identity and other particulars who confessed voluntarily about the commission of offence in this crime along with A2 and recorded the said confession in the presence of panchayatdar ie., P.W.7 and others and obtained their signatures and later he sent A1 to the judicial custody through

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Lakkireddipalli and on 20.9.2006

he also arrested Juvenile namely Chakravarthi son of Srinivasulu who is a juvenile in conflict with law and he was sent to Juvenile court, Kadapa and he sent the skull and also passport size positive photographs of the deceased to FSL Hyderabad for analysis through the court and on pm 25.6.2007 he also sent blood samples of of the son of deceased to FSL Hyderabad for DNA test. After completion of investigation his Successor in office filed the charge sheet against the accused.

17. Except P.W.7 who is the Panchayat Secretary and

P.W.9 who is the Sub Inspector of Police who investigated the case

before whom he secured the alleged accused, confession of offence

in murdering the deceased and such confession was recorded by the police when it comes by ocular evidence let in by the prosecution none of the witnesses spelt out any incriminating material against this accused in committing these offence. All the fair7 witnesses examined by the prosecution were completely Somar salt to the case of the prosecution that there was a hand glow of accused herein and the Juvenile in conflict with law in C.C.No.37 of 2010 on the file of Principal Magistrate for Juvenile, Kadapa in committing the murder of deceased herein and also buried him in earth at the scene of offence.

18. In the absence of any incriminating piece of evidence let in by the prosecution witnesses ie., P.Ws.1 to 10 any amount of confession spelt out by the accused in this case and the

Juvenile in conflict with law before the mediators is not a substantive piece of evidence and this piece of evidence is alone not sufficient enough to come to conclusion that the prosecution has proved the guilt of this accused beyond reasonable doubt and the police might have charge sheet against this accused as well as another Juvenile in conflict with law in C.C.No.37 of 2010 on the basis of suspicion and full of evasion. Nothing was elicited nor established from the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 10 to prove the guilt of this accused.

19. It is buttress as there is no substantial piece of evidence to connect the accused in committing the offence as alleged by the prosecution and in view of the hostility expressed by

P.Ws.3,4,5 and P.W.6 who veered round, roll back and Somar salt to the case of the prosecution cannot be possible to say that the accused has nexed with the crime as alleged. Hence, the prosecution has failed to establish the ingredients of offence under

Sections 302 and 201 of I.P.C as no one of the prosecution witnesses stated about the involvement of these accused in committing these offences.

fair8

20. There is ring of truthing from the evidence of

P.Ws.1 to 10 to believe the evidence of all to show that the accused is liable for conviction for any one of the offences under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. The serious contention of the prosecution is that the accused in this case and the Juvenile in conflict with law who was allotted by the Magistrate Juvenile Court, Kadapa in C.C.No.37 of 2010 have planned conspired together to murder the deceased

Veera Nagaiah in view of the above disputes between them is nothing but intuition, half truth and ring truth on which basis the accused is not found guilty as it was based upon sans evidence.

21. Considering the ocular and impeccable evidence that was placed by the prosecution, this court do not have any hesitation and stead-fast to hold that the prosecution, in all the angles has failed to establish all the ingredients for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. During the course of 313 Cr.P.C examination of this accused he submitted a certified copy of judgment rendered by the learned Magistrate in C.C.No.37 of 2010 against Juvenile in conflict with law namely Korakati Chakravarthi who is allegedly hand in glow with this accused and have jointly murdered the deceased which goes to establish that the case against Juvenile in conflict with law is acquitted.

22. It is therefore, the accused is found not guilty and accused is entitled for acquittal for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 IPC.

23. In the result, the accused is found not guilty and he is acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 IPC with which he was charge sheeted fair9 and the accused is directed to set at liberty forthwith. The bail bonds of the accused and that of his sureties shall stand cancelled after appeal time is over.

The unmarked case property received by this court in

CPR Item No.5 of 2015 dt.30.1.2015 shall ordered to be destroyed by the committal court concerned after appeal time is over and the same shall be retained with the committal court.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 30th day of March, 2016.

V ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

RAYACHOTY.

Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined for Prosecution: Defence: Nil P.W.1 : Vempalli Bayareddy. P.W.2 : G. Bogeswaraiah. P.W.3 : Peddaboddu Narasimhulu. P.W.4 : S.Ramakrishnam Naidu. P.W.5 : Injeti Reddeppa. P.W.6 : P.Subbarayudu. P.W.7 : Settipalli Raveendra reddy. P.W.8 : Dr.B.Ramachandrudu, C.A.S., P.W.9 : K.Hema Sundara Rao, CI of Police. P.W.10: D.Somanna, CI of Police.

Exhibits marked for Prosecution: Ex.P1 : Report of P.W.1 given to police dt.21.7.2006. Ex.P2 : 161 (3) Cr.P.C statement of P.W.3 dt.18.8.2006. Ex.P3 : Signature of P.W.3 in inquest report dt.22.7.2006. Ex.P4 : Signature of P.W.4 in inquest report. Ex.P5 : Signature of P.W.5 in the inquest report. Ex.P6 : Confession statement dt.04.9.2006 at 10.00 a.m Ex.P7 : Attested copy of confession statement dt.20.9.2006 at 4.30 p.m Ex.P8 : Postmortem certificate dt.22.7.2006. Ex.P9 : Final Postmortem certificate dt.08.5.2007. Ex.P10: FIR in Cr.No.75 of 2006 of Galiveedu Police Station u/s 174 Cr.P.C. Ex.P11: Rough sketch of the scene of offence. Ex.P12: Altered FIR in Cr.No.75 of 2006 of Galiveedu police station for the offences u/ss. 302 and 201 IPC. Exhibits marked for Defence: Nil.

fair10

Material Objects marked for

Nil.

V ADJ.

Back

Daily Status

In the Court of :III Additional District Judge, Rajampet

Case No. :MVOP/0000089/2014 Pasupuleti Adinarayana Vs Guduru Chandra Kala, major

Date : 01-02-2016

Business: That the compensation amount of Rs.500000 shall be paid to the petitioners and the 2nd respondent on behalf of all the respondents shall pay the said amount to the petitioners without costs and interest. \ that the 2nd respondent has to deposit the said amount of Rs.500000 within one month from the date of this award. \ Out of the settled compensation amount of Rs.500000 within one month from the date of this award. \ Out of the settled compensation amount of Rs.500000 the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are entitled for Rs.200000 each and petitioner No.3 is entitled for Rs.100000 and they are permitte to withdraw their entire share amount, after deposit by the 2nd respondent. \ That the court fee paid by the petitioners shall be refunded to them.Accordingly,award is passed. Nature of Disposal: SETTLED BEFORE LOK ADALAT Disposal Date: 01-02-2016 III Additional District Judge, Rajampet

In the Court of :V Additional District Judge, Rayachoty

Case No. :MVOP/0000086/2014 Shaik Kalesha Vs A.Ravindra Vara Kumar

Date  : 13-02-2016

Business: Before Lok Adalat 1)That the compensation amount of Rs.4,00,000/- shall be paid to the petitioners and the 2nd respondent on behalf of all the respondents shall pay the said amount to the petitioners without costs and interest. 2)That the 2nd respondent has to deposit the said amount of Rs.4,00,000/- within the one month from the date of this award. 3)Out of the settled compensation amount of Rs.4,00,000/- the petitioners Nos.1 and 2 are entitled for Rs.2,00,000 each and they are permitted to withdraw their entire share amount,after deposit by the 2nd respondent. 4)That the court fee paid by the petitioners shall be refunded to them.Accordingly, award is passed. Nature of Disposal: SETTLED BEFORE LOK ADALAT Disposal Date: 13-02-2016 V Additional District Judge, Rayachoty

Back

Daily Status

In the Court of :III Additional District Judge, Rajampet

Case No. :MVOP/0000246/2011 Bandi Perumal alias Mulapadi Chandu Vs S.vijaya Bharathi

Date : 20-01-2016

Business: That the compensation amount of Rs.560000 shall be paid to the petitioner and the 2nd respondent on behalf of all the respondent on behalf of all the respondents shall pay the said amount to the petitioner without costs and interest. \ That the 2nd respondent has to deposit the said amount of Rs.560000 within oen month from the date of this award. \ That the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the entire amount of Rs.560000 after deposit by the 2nd respondent. \ That the court fee paid by the petitioner shall be refunded to him.Accordingly award is passed. Nature of Disposal: SETTLED BEFORE LOK ADALAT Disposal Date: 20-01-2016 III Additional District Judge, Rajampet