IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE (FTC) AT SIDDIPET
PRESENT: SMT G. NEELIMA,
VI Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Siddipet FAC IV Addl.District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Siddipet.
Monday the 11 th day of April, 2022
SESSIONS CASE No. 99 OF 2016
Name of Complainant PS Siddipet-I Town
Name of accusedA1 Mohd. Abdul Saleem @ Srinu S/o Ghani, aged 42 years, Caste: Shaik Muslim, Occ: Driver, R/o Narayanaraopet village of Siddipet Mandal, now at Khaderpura in Siddipet Town of Medak District.
A2 Mandala Mallavva @ Afreen W/o Md. Abdul Saleem @ Srinu, aged 33 years, Caste: SC Mala, Occ: Beedi Maker R/o Irkode village of Siddipet Mandal now residing at Khaderpura Street, Siddipet Town.
Charge U/Section 302, 380, 201 IPC
Plea of AccusedNot Guilty
Finding of CourtNot Guilty
Sentence / Order Acquitted
Prosecution Conducted bySri Venkat Lingam Yasala, Addl.Public Prosecutor
Defence Conducted bySri Y.Rajeshwar Reddy, Advocate
P.R.C No. & Cr. No.PRC.No. 5 of 2016 Cr.No.263 of 2014
Case Committed bySri G.Praveen Kumar, Prl. Judicial First Class
Magistrate, Siddipet.
This Sessions Case having come before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Venkat Lingam Yasala, Addl.Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri Y. Rajeshwar Reddy, Advocate for accused, upon perusal of material papers available on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:-
:: J U D G M E N T ::
1.First Accused is resident of Khaderpura and second accused is his wife. Both of them are accused of murdering one Pushpa W/o Nagabhushanam on 03.11.2014 at the house of accused. The offences alleged against them are under Section 302 of Indian
Penal Code, Section 380 of Indian Penal Code and Section 201 of Indian Penal Code.
2 of 13 SC 99 of 2016 IV AD & SJ (FTC)Siddipet
The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:
2.1On 04-11-2014 at 6.30 pm Gowrishetty Suresh Kumar lodged a complaint stating that his mother Gowrishetty Pushpa left the house on the night of 03-11-2014 at about 8.30 pm informing his father and sister-in-law Nimkitha to go to the house of
Padma, as Pushpa did not return home till 9-45 pm, his sister-in-law Santhoshi rushed to the house of Padma and said Padma informed that Pushpa left her house, he searched for his mother and could not found, he further stated that on 03-11-2014 morning his mother received phone calls to her mobile twice at 9-10 am and 10-18 am from coin box No.9397697423, but his mother did not inform them and left the house by leaving the phone in the house itself. A case in Cr.No.263 of 2014 was registered by police, Siddipet-I Town under the head of Woman Missing and took up investigation.
2.2On 04-11-2014 at 0700 hours LW7 Dongari Ramesh VRO Thimmajiwadi village lodged a complaint at PS Sadasivanagar stating that on 04-11-2014 at about 0600 hours he came to know through Daggi villagers that one unidentified female dead body found beside Daggi village road, near Kothuri Sambashivarao eucalyptus trees, he rushed to the spot and observed unknown persons killed unidentified female somewhere and brought the dead body there at 0300 hours and burnt by pouring petrol or diesel. SHO, Sadasivanagar registered a case in Cr.No.221/2014 under Section 302, 201 IPC was registered, statements of witnesses were recorded, inquest as well as scene of offence panchanama was conducted in the presence of mediators and seized 1
Red and black colour burnt sari piece under said panchanama and Medical Officer of
Govt.Hospital, Kamareddy held autopsy over the dead body of deceased and opined that the cause of death of deceased is “due to asphyxia due to strangulation”.
2.3While investigation is in progress on 28-11-2014 the suspects namely Mohd.
Abdul Saleem @ Srinu and his wife Mallavva @ Afreen were apprehended and on interrogation they confessed to have committed the offence in this case along with other offences in the presence of mediators. In respect of this case, it is their confession that on 03-11-2014 A1 telephoned to Pushpa's mobile through coin box and asked
Pushpa to come to A1's house as A1 prepared medicine which diverts Pushpa's husband's mind towards Pushpa as Pushpa's husband asking her to leave the house by offering her net cash of Rs.10,00,000/-, on that Pushpa went to the house of A1 around 1.00 am and A1 made Pushpa to lit lamp and vow to lamp, after vowing Pushpa went away, A1 asked Pushpa to come to A1's house in the evening, but Pushpa did not come, 3 of 13 SC 99 of 2016 IV AD & SJ (FTC)Siddipet upon which A1 went towards the house of Pushpa and in the night at about 8.30 pm
Pushpa came to A1's house, immediately A1 and A2 made Pushpa to sit and lit lamp and vow to it, when said Pushpa was vowing to the lamp by closing her eyes, A1 took pestle and firmly banged over her head from back side, due to which Pushpa died on the spot, immediately A1 and A2 took 5 tolas gold pusthelathadu, gold ear tops, 1 tola toe rings numbering 4, (4) gilt bangles and a pair of silver leg chain from the dead body and concealed them in their house with a view to dispose them later, after that A1 took the dead body in a Swift car bearing No.AP29/AU 3503 by covering it with bed sheet, proceeded towards Sadashivanagar area of Nizamabad District via Ramayampet and Kamareddy and thrown away the dead body beside the road leads to Daggi village, where eucalyptus trees are existing on either side of road and burnt the dead body by pouring petrol, after that A1 and A2 returned to Siddipet, gold and silver ornaments stolen from the deceased Pushpa were kept with A1's mother and pestle concealed in
A1's rented house. As per the confession of A1 and A2 Section of law was altered to
Section 302, 380 and 201 IPC and police seized two rows of gold pusthelathadu, wg.about 48 grams, one pair of gold ear tops weighing about 5 grams, four silver toe rings weighing about 44 grams, one pair of silver leg chains weight about 69 grams, four gilt bangles weighing about 25 grams, wooden pestle, white Colour Swift VDI
Car No.AP29/AU 3503 at the instance of A1 and A2 in this case i.e. Cr.No.263 of 2014. Thus, A1 and A2 committed offences punishable under Sections 302, 380 and 201 IPC.
3.Cognizance of the case was taken by the Learned Principal Junior Civil Judge- cum-Judicial First Class Magistrate, Siddipet in PRC No.5 of 2016. After following the due procedure, this case was committed to the Court of Sessions,Sessions Division,
Sangareddy and later it was made over to VI Additional District and Sessions Court,
Siddipet on 15.03.2016.
4.Upon considering the material and hearing learned Public Prosecutor for the prosecution and for the accused charges under Sections 302, 380 and 201 of Indian
Penal Code are framed read over and explained to Accused No.1 & 2 in Telugu. The plea of the accused is one of the denial and not guilty.
5.At the trial in order to prove these charges, the prosecution examined PW1 to
PW17 and marked Ex.P1 to P22 and MO1 to MO7.
4 of 13 SC 99 of 2016 IV AD & SJ (FTC)Siddipet
6.The accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in respect of the incriminating material appearing against them from the prosecution evidence. They denied the circumstances and did not choose to examine any witnesses on their behalf.
At the time of arguments this case was transferred from VI Additional District and
Sessions Court, Siddipet to IV Additional District and Sessions Court (FTC), Siddipet
for disposal.
7.Written Arguments submitted by learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the prosecution and Learned defence counsel for the accused.
8.Now, the point for determination is-
Whether the prosecution has brought home charges under Sections 302,
380 and 201 of Indian Penal Code against Accused No.1 & 2 beyond
reasonable doubt?
Point:
9.The prosecution is relying on circumstantial evidence in this case to prove the alleged charges against the accused. More prominently, it is relying on the alleged extra judicial confession of Accused No.1 before PW16 who was the Village Revenue
Officer, Siddipet and the fact as to recovery of jewellery of deceased/Pushpa at his instance as well as crime object.
10.Extra judicial confession is admissible in evidence though a weak piece to connect the accused to the alleged incident. However, if it is inspiring confidence and proved to be truthful made with a free will and without any coercion on the part of anyone on the accused, it also becomes a safe basis to base a conviction.
11.According to PW1/Nagabhushanam stated that on 3.11.2014 at about 8.30 pm, his second wife Pushpa went to visit their neighbour telling him that she is visiting their neighbour Padma, his wife Pushpa did not return even after one hour, on that his daughter in law Santhoshi expressed as to why his wife Pushpa did not return back and she went to their neighbour’s house, they told that his wife Pushpa did not visit their house, they all searched for her but could not find her, they also enquired with their 5 of 13 SC 99 of 2016 IV AD & SJ (FTC)Siddipet relatives on phone and they also told that his wife Pushpa did not visit them, his wife
Pushpa’s phone was at home itself, on the next day i.e. 4-11-2014 after lodging complaint Ex.P1 by his son Suresh kumar before Police Station Siddipet-I town, they came to know through police that a female deadbody was at Kamareddy hospital mortuary and police asked them to identify the deadbody, they went there, the body was in a burnt condition, they identified that the deadbody of Pushpa, it appeared that some body kidnapped and murdered Pushpa. He further stated that when his wife
Pushpa went outside their house, she was wearing two rows of gold Pustelathadu with two gold pustes, one pair of ear studs, one pair of silver anklets and four silver mettelu i.e. MO1 to 4 are two rows of gold Pustelathadu with two gold pustes, one pair of ear studs, one pair of silver anklets and four silver mettelu respectively, MO1 to 4 were missing when he saw the deadbody of his wife Pushpa.
12.In fact, as seen from the cross-examination of PW1, it is suggested by defence counsel that he did not state before police that when his wife went out from their house and whether she was wearing any gold and silver ornaments or that she was wearing a particular saree. When Ex.P1 report was presented by LW1 in Siddipet I Town Police
Station, it was received by PW12 and registered Ex.P7 F.I.R. Ex.P1 report did not disclose that deceased was wearing gold and silver ornaments, nor it was stated in 161
Cr.P.C. statement.
13.The prosecution is relying on the evidence of PW3 who stated that he had seen the deceased Pushpa walking into the lane of house of accused. PW3 did not state that deceased was seen with the accused. Prosecution tried to impress upon this Court by arguing about the presence of accused with deceased was witnessed by PW3. As per the evidence of PW3, deceased walked into the lane of accused house. But he did not assertively state that deceased was found with accused. Therefore, PW3 witnessing the deceased going into the lane of house of accused cannot form basis for conviction.
14.The circumstance must indisputably point out that the accused alone are the real offenders. Those circumstances should be such that they cannot be explained away on the basis of any other reasonable hypothesis. It is not made clear that deceased went to the house of accused on the date of occurrence. So, it is unsafe to rely on the evidence of PW3.
6 of 13 SC 99 of 2016 IV AD & SJ (FTC)Siddipet
15.PW4 deposed that on 04.11.2014 at 6 am he received information that unknown female dead body in a burnt condition was found on the road leading to Daggi village and he gave Ex.P2 report to police. PW14, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police who received report from PW4, got registered a case in Cr.No.221/2014 under Sections 302, 380 and 201 of Indian Penal Code and handed over file to PW15 who rushed to the scene of offence and examined PW4, PW8, LW9, LW10, LW11 and PW6 and got photographs (Ex.P3 to P6) of scene of offence through PW6 and conducted scene of offence panchanama and seized burnt cloth pieces and shifted body to Kamareddy and gave requisition to hospital authorities for conducting autopsy and PW10 Dr.Samereen conducted autopsy.
16.Thus, the evidence on record to that extent clearly established that Smt. Pushpa had met with homicidal death.
17.To connect the Accused No.1 & 2 to murder of Pushpa, the prosecution tried to rely on the evidence of PW3, PW5, PW7, PW8 and PW10. Their evidence did not help the prosecution in any manner. Since PW3 did not see the deceased with Accused No.1 & 2, lastly and it is not disputed by Accused No.1 & 2 that they never resided in
Khaderpura and PW7 did not give his car to the Accused No.1 and he was told by the son of Accused No.1 that his father wants to go to Jogipet on car. According to PW8,
Accused No.1 came to his kirana shop and made call through coin box. His evidence does not lead anywhere and even if his version is accepted being true, there is nothing unusual brought out against Accused No.1 & 2 in relation to alleged murder of Smt.
Pushpa.
18.Prosecution relied on the evidence of PW16 and PW10 to connect the Accused
No.1 & 2 with crime. In so far as apprehension of accused and seizure of Material
Objects, prosecution tried to prove through PW16 P.Lingayya. His testimony discloses that Accused No.1 & 2 who are in police station admitted the commission of offence in this case and they clearly stated that Accused No.1 beat the deceased Pushpa strongly with pestle on her head and she died on the spot with head injury.
19.PW10 conducted postmortem examination and noted 3 ante mortem injuries and 8 postmortem injuries. i.e. ante mortem injuries (1) Lacerated wound over left parietal area measuring 2 x 2 x 1 cm., (2) Lacerated wound over left parietal area measuring 3 x 7 of 13 SC 99 of 2016 IV AD & SJ (FTC)Siddipet 2 x 1 cm (3) Lacerated wound over right parietal area measuring 3 x 2 x 1 cm., post mortem injuries (1) Deep to superficial burns all over the body sparing face which are 90% burns (2) Abdominal viscera seen out side the abdomen (3) Abdominal wall was burst open (4) Peritoneal cavity is seen out side (5) Small intestains was visible and partial burnt (6) Large intestains was visible and partial burnt, (7) Pancreas was liquefied and (8) Neck, thyroid, larynx and other neck structures are burnt. She opined that cause of death of Pushpa was due to asphyxia due to strangulation followed by deep extensive burnt under the influence of alcohol. The learned defence counsel pointed out that as per the case of prosecution Accused No.1 firmly banged on the head of deceased while she closed her eyes to pray god as a result of head injury, she died on spot.
20. If really the case of the prosecution is genuine how could the deceased die due to asphyxia due to strangulation under the influence of alcohol. Ex.P4 R.F.S.L. report pertains to DNA matching between LW1 and deceased. In fact identity of deceased is not under dispute. Forensic Analysis Report relating to viscera contents has not seen the day light of the day. When the Accused No.1 alleged to have beat how could she die due to asphyxia due to strangulation. Therefore, the said case of prosecution is incorrect. If the deceased was under the influence of alcohol before death as stated in postmortem report, it would indicate that the case of prosecution that deceased died on the spot soon after she was beat by Accused No.1 in the house of accused have became improbable. Opinion expressed by PW10 Medical Officer would have serious impact on the case of the prosecution and it is against the versions given by the accused in their confessional statements.
21.According to prosecution, it was pursuant to statement of Accused No.1 & 2, when they had lead PW17 then Circle Inspector of Police, Siddipet-I Town and PW16 and LW21 who acted as mediator when he had fallen all of them to his house and to his mother’s house and house of Srinivas and jewellery shop and had shown the places where dead body was allegedly burnt its recovery was effected. PW17 Circle Inspector of Police Siddipet-I Town deposed in respect of it. It was mentioned in the confessional statement of Accused No.1 & 2 that they made a statement relating to the murder of one Devamma who belongs to scheduled caste. But in the evidence of
PW17 he clearly admitted that one V.Padma Reddy was tried for murder of Devamma in STSC 4 of 2012 on the file of S.C.S.T.Court, Sangreddy and some Material Objects 8 of 13 SC 99 of 2016 IV AD & SJ (FTC)Siddipet were placed before the Court at Sangareddy. Thus, the alleged discovery of fact pursuant to the statement made by A1 which the prosecution tried to rely on under
Section 27 of Evidence Act appeared as false. PW16 and PW17 are highly interested in the outcome of prosecution they cannot relied on as such.
22.The prosecution tried to rely on the evidence of PW8 Kamalachary from whose shop A1 made phone call through coin box. But his evidence is only to the effect that
A1 made phone call from coin box, present in the kirana shop of PW8. Investigating agency failed to submit call data of coin box phone in order to connect the Accused
No.1 with deceased who was alleged to have conversed with deceased before the incident.
23.This evidence of PW3/S.Anjaneyulu brings out another discrepancy in the case of the prosecution through his evidence. According to PW1, deceased left the house on 03.11.2014 and according to PW4 dead body of deceased was found on 04.11.2014 at 6 am, whereas according to PW3/Anjaneyulu, he had seen the Pushpa on 06.11.2014 at 9.00 pm and at that time Pushpa was walking on the road, when such evidence on record is taken into consideration, it is possible that PW3/Anjaneyulu came out with a wrong version. When such evidence on record is taken into, it is rather difficult to believe and rely on the testimonies of PW3, PW7, PW8, PW16 to connect the Accused
No.1 & 2 to the murder of Smt. Pushpa.
24.Medical Evidence through PW10 and through Postmortem Examination (Ex.P5) brought out another dimension to the story of prosecution, when the so called Extra judicial confession of A1 & A2 reflected that whatever injuries caused to the deceased were by means of wooden pestle marked as MO7 in this case, then how could deceased died due to asphyxia under alcohol state.
25.It is a vital discrepancy and did not fit in with ocular testimony adduced by the prosecution against the accused. According to the prosecution both the Accused No.1 and Accused No.2 had planned to murder the deceased and in the attack on the deceased Accused No.1 had beat her by means of a wooden pestle. As rightly contended for the accused neither Ex.P11 nor evidence of PW16 made out any role for
A2 in the alleged incident. The story of the prosecution is more based on the alleged confession of Accused No.1 to implicate Accused No.2. Such confession cannot be treated admissible in evidence in term of Section 25 of Evidence Act. Ex.P12 relevant portion in confessional statement did not disclose any recovery at the instance of A2.
9 of 13 SC 99 of 2016 IV AD & SJ (FTC)Siddipet
Thus, it is another strong and serious circumstance to suspect the veracity of the prosecution story as well as its evidence on record. The attempted explanation of the prosecution, in this context, regarding the injuries on the dead body is not at all convincing nor can it be believed.
26.As seen from the entire case of the prosecution the Accused No.1 & 2 had confessed about the murder of Devamma and dispose of dead body at Irkode village.
But in the year 2011 one V.Padma Reddy was charged for the murder of Devamma and basing on the confessional statement given by him. One gold chain, pair of ear studs, nose pin, two pairs of toe rings weighing about 4 tulas kept in the almirah and also a
Maruthi 800 car bearing No.2266 from the house of accused. Surprisingly, Accused
No.1 & 2 were also made responsible for the death of Devamma as per confessional statements under Ex.P11 and Ex.P12. So, confessional statements under Ex.P11 and
Ex.P12 are not found to be material placed by the prosecution cannot be believed nor can be relied on to prove the murder of Pushpa attributed to Accused No.1 & 2.
27.PW1 identified MO1 to MO4 as the jewellary belonging to his wife. The accused are not claiming these items of gold jewellary as belong to them. These are the circumstances according to the prosecution are sufficient to prove a charge under
Section 380 of IPC. But, it is pointed out on behalf of the accused that Ex.P1 did not refer to nature of MO1 to MO4 with the complete description. It is true that no such description of MO1 to MO4 found in Ex.P1 which fact was evident from evidence of
PW12 and further stated that PW1 & PW2 and LW1 did not furnish details of gold ornaments which the deceased was wearing or which were in her custody on the day she left home. Though, MO1 to MO4 were subjected to identification parade by PW11 in the course of investigation through PW1, PW2 and LW3, Ex.P6 report cannot be accepted as there is every probability to show MO1 to MO4 to PW1, PW2 & LW3 by police before they came for test identification parade. If description of these items with other particulars are stated by PW1, PW2 & LW3, Ex.P6 report can be given weight.
28.One of the contention on behalf of the accused is that preparation of common panchanamas under Ex.P11 & Ex.P12 is improper, in as much as to apply Section 27 of
Indian Evidence Act, the statement of the accused offering to show or produce the crime objects or articles should have been recorded separately and proof of discovery of fact leading to recovery of the crime articles should have been brought out by another panchanama. Therefore, jumbling up all these circumstances in such panchanamas in Ex.P11, Ex.P13, Ex.P15 and Ex.P16 are not legally permissible and 10 of 13 SC 99 of 2016 IV AD & SJ (FTC)Siddipet therefore recovery of these properties from these accused cannot be believed.
29.From the evidence of PW1 and PW2, it is clear that descriptive particulars MO1 to MO4 were not informed by them to the police. A keen perusal of Ex.P14 scene of offence cum seizure report reveals that second accused produced one pusthelathadu and informed to mediators that it was taken out from the neck of Indiramma after hitting on her head with wooden pestle and she further produced one pair of ear studs and confessed before mediators that those ear studs belongs to Devamma which they have taken after killing her and those properties are no way connected to the present case.
30.Ex.A16 seizure report goes to show that first accused went into the house of his mother situated in Nasarpura and produced MO1 to MO4 from the house of his mother.
There is nothing to indicate as seen from these Material Objects that they were seized from the possession of Accused No.1 & 2 on 28.11.2014 at the house of A1 and at the house of A1's mother, except for the interest of testimony of PW16 sought to be corroborated by PW17. He should also be taken as interested witness to the police on account of his situation as V.R.O. When evidence of PW16 is that he identify the accused present in the Court after prosecution in Ex.P11, Ex.P12, Ex.P14 and Ex.P16 and prior to it, they were strangers to him, such circumstance itself makes out that this witness had obliged the police in an effort to prove recovery of MO1 to MO4.
31.Though the presumption under Section 114 of Evidence Act, calls upon accused to prove how they were in possession of MO1 to MO4 such presumption is only optional in nature. Depending on facts and circumstances of the case, the Court may or may not raise such presumption.
32.Therefore, in the above circumstances, the case of the prosecution basing on this sole circumstance cannot be believed. Nor such recovery leads to infer that Accused murdered the deceased for gain and had disposed of the dead body in an attempt to screen evidence. Even in respect of screening themselves from the alleged incident and from possible punishment to attract a charge under Section 201 of Indian Penal Code, there is no material on record. The evidence brought on record proved that the version of the prosecution is not truthful nor consistent.
33.In "Sujoy Sen @ Sujoy KriSen vs. State of West Bengal (2008) (1) ALT (Crl.) 77 (SC). In para 7 of this Ruling, their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court in this context observed as under:- 11 of 13 SC 99 of 2016 IV AD & SJ (FTC)Siddipet "This is a case of circumstantial evidence and it is well settled that in a case of circumstantial evidence the prosecution has to establish the chain of circumstances which inevitably connect the accused to the crime. Even if a single link breaks the whole prosecution case collapses."
34.Therefore, considering all these circumstances cumulatively, it cannot stated that any of the charges set out against the accused are brought out against them by prosecution evidence beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, benefit should be extended to the accused of this doubt recording an order of acquittal.
35.Thus, it has to be held that the prosecution failed to prove charges under
Sections 302, 380 and 201 of Indian Penal Code against A1 and A2 beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently they have to be acquitted of these charges holding them not guilty.
36.Thus, this point is answered in favour of the accused and against the prosecution.
37.In the result, Accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty of charges under Sections 302, 380 and 201 of Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, they are acquitted under Section 235 (1) of Criminal Procedure Code. Bail bonds of the accused No.1 & 2 stand cancelled. MO1 to MO4 stated to be belonging to the deceased/Pushpa shall be returned to her legal heirs subject to appropriate proof on expiry of appeal time. MO5
Swift Car VDI Car bearing No.AP29 AV 3503 which is in interim custody of PW7 shall be retained by him after appeal time is over. MO6 Metal bangles and MO7
Wooden pestle which are useless items are directed to be destroyed on expiry of appeal time. Office is directed to forward the Material Objects to the Committal Court to carry out the direction as to disposal of these properties. Both the accused are directed to execute a bond for Rs.20,000/- with two sureties for like sum each undertaking to appear before Hon'ble High of Judicature at
Hyderabad (Appellate Court) in therms of Section 437-A (1) of Criminal Procedure
Code. Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer (Grade-I), Corrected and Pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 11th day of April, 2022.
Sd/-
VI ADDL.DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE, SIDDIPET,
FAC IV ADDL.DIST.& SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC)
SIDDIPET.
12 of 13 SC 99 of 2016 IV AD & SJ (FTC)Siddipet
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
witnesses examined for
PROSECUTION
PW1:G. Nagabhushanam(Husband of deceased) PW2:G. Ramesh (Son of deceased) PW3:S. Anjaneyulu (circumstantial witness) PW4:D. Ramesh (circumstantial witness) PW5:Md. Hafees (owner of accused rented house) PW6:T. Saibaba (Photographer) PW7:Md. Abdul Rafi (Owner of Crime Vehicle) PW8:G.Kamalachary (circumstantial witness) PW9:M. Santhosh (First seen the dead body) PW10:Dr. Samreen (Conducted autopsy) PW11:K.V.Chandrashekar Rao (Magistrate conducted Test Identification Parade of stolen property of deceased) PW12:K. Satyanarayana (Investigation Officer) PW13:B. Vijaya (circumstantial witness) PW14:J.Venkat Ram Narsaiah (Investigation Officer) PW15:G. Koteshwar Rao (Investigation Officer) PW16:P. Lingam (circumstantial witness) PW17:K. Surender Reddy (Investigation Officer)
DEFENCE
-None-
Prosecution Exhibits Ex.P1:Complaint in Cr.No.263/2014 of PS Siddipet-I Town Ex.P2:Complaint in Cr.No.221/2014 of PS Sadashivnagar of Nizamabad District Ex.P3:6 colour photographs Ex.P4:FSL Report for DNA Test in Cr.No.263/2014 Ex.P5:Post Mortem Examination in Cr.No.221/2014 of PS Sadashivanagar Ex.P6:Test Identification Parade of property in Cr.No.263/2014 Ex.P7:FIR in Cr.No.263/2014 of PS Siddipet-I Town Ex.P8:Crime Detail Form (Scene of offence panchanama) along with rough sketch in Cr.No.221/2014 of PS Sadashivnagar Ex.P9:Inquest panchanama in Cr.No.221/2014 of PS Sadashivnagar Ex.P10:FIR in Cr.No.221/2014 of PS Sadashivnagar Ex.P11:Relevant Admissible portion of confession of A1 Ex.P12:Relevant Admissible portion of confession of A2 Ex.P13:Scene of offence panchanama along with sketch Dt.28-11-2014 conducted at Daggi village in Cr.No.263/2014 of PS Siddipet-I Town Ex.P14:Scene of offence panchanama and seizure panchanama Dt.28-11-2014 at Khaderpura, Siddipet Ex.P15:Rough sketch Ex.P16:Seizure panchanama with sketch Dt,.28-11-2014 in Cr.No.263/2014 of PS Siddipet-I Town (conducted at house of mother of A1) (Recovered MO1, MO2, MO3, MO4 and MO6) 13 of 13 SC 99 of 2016 IV AD & SJ (FTC)Siddipet
Ex.P17:Seizure panchanama with sketch Dt.28-11-2014 in Cr.No.263/2014 of PS Siddipet-I Town at the house of Srinivas Karimnagar road, Siddipet. Ex.P18:Seizure panchanama with sketch Dt.28-11-2014 in Cr.No.263/2014 of PS Siddipet-I Town (conducted at House of Firoze Baig, Baraimam, Siddipet) Ex.P19:Seizure panchanama with sketch Dt.28-11-2014 in Cr.No.247/2014 of PS Siddipet-I Town conducted at the house of Gouse, Barahimam, Siddipet town Ex.P20:Seizure panchanama with sketch Dt.29-11-2014 in Cr.No.263/2014 of PS Siddipet-I Town conducted at the house of Abdul Rafi at yellareddinagar, Siddipet) Ex.P21:Attested copy of scene of offence with sektch in Cr.No.247/2014 of PS Siddipet-I Town (conducted at the house of Balraj, Subashnagar, Siddipet town) Ex.P22:Section Alteration Memo in Cr.No.263 of 2014
Material Objects marked for prosecution:
MO1Gold Pustelathadu with two gold puste MO2Gold ear studs MO3One pair of silver anklets MO4Four Silver Mettelu MO5Swift Car (interim custody) AP29 AV 3503 MO6Four Metal bangles MO7Wooden pestle
Sd/-
VI ADDL.DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE, SIDDIPET,
FAC IV ADDL.DIST.& SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC)
SIDDIPET.