1
IN THE COURT OF THE METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE :: HYDERABAD
Dated this the 23rd day of October, 2017
Present : Smt. G. Radha Rani, Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.
SESSIONS CASE NO. 71/2016
( PRC No. 25/2015 on the file of III Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad )
Committed bySri R. Thirupathi, III Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.
Crime Number & Police StationCrime No. 693/2017 & PS S.R. Nagar, Hyderabad.
Name and description of the AccusedA1). Vemi Reddy Venkateswar Reddy S/o V. Kota Reddy, Age: 26 years, Occupation: Proprietor of M/s. Srinivasa Transport Business, Moosapet, Hyderabad. R/o.H.No.8- 4-371/210,Prabhatnagar,Borabanda, Hyderabad.
A2). Adan Mahender Reddy S/o A. Ram Reddy, Age: 26 years, Occupation: STD Booth Business, R/o.H.No.8-3-169/28, Ganga Nagar, Yousufguda, Hyderabad.
A3). Irukula Venkateswarlu S/o Late I. Narayana, Age: 34 years, Occupation: Customs Clearing Agent at M/s. Mayur Associates,Begumpet,Secunderabad. R/o.Flat No.2, Om Apartments, Gautam Nagar, Malkajgiri, Hyderabad. (Abated on 06.06.2016)
A4). Velisani Raji Reddy S/o V. Sayanna, Age: 37 years, Occupation: Agriculture, R/o.H.No.3- 4, Madhava Nagar, Nizamabad District.
A5). Tuma Dayanand S/o T. Chennaiah, Age: 32 years, Occupation: Owner of Cycle Shop at Nizamabad District. R/o.H.No.3-7-110/1, Kota Galli, Nizamabad District.
A6). Siliveru Sashi Kiran @ Shashi S/o S. Satyanarayana, Age: 24 years, Occupation: Car Driver, R/o.H.No.2-10-13, Near Samata School, Bobbili Street, Nizamabad District.
A7). Sevela Kiran S/o S. Gangaram, Age: 27 years, Occupation: Carpenter, R/o.H.No.3-3- 396, Gayatri Nagar, Nizamabad District.
A8). Matta Bal Reddy @ Matta Balaiah S/o M. Balaiah, Age: 55 years, Occupation: Agriculturist, R/o.Samudra Lingapur Village, Gambiraopet Mandal, Karimnagar District.
A9). Shaik Kaleem S/o Shaik Raheem, Age: 30 years, Occupation: Driver, R/o.Ahmedpura Colony, Nizamabad District.
Name and description of theThe State through the Inspector of Police, ComplainantPS S.R. Nagar, Hyderabad.
2
Prosecution conducted bySri. P. Ravinder Reddy, Public Prosecutor of this Court.
Accused defended bySri G. Koteshwar Rao, Advocate for A1, A2 and A4 to A8 Sri Md. Vaseeuddin, Advocate for A9
Offence Chargedunder Sections 120-B, 364, 302 and 201 r/w 149 IPC
Plea of the accusedNot guilty.
Finding of the CourtA1, A2 and A4 to A9 are found not guilty for the offences under Section 120-B, 364, 302 and 201 r/w 149 IPC
ResultIn the result, the A1, A2 and A4 to A9 are found not guilty for the offences under Section 120-B, 364, 302 and 201 r/w 149 IPC with which they were charged and accordingly, acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after appeal time. The vehicles seized by the police unmarked are liable to be returned to the registered owners. The unmarked case property of the skeletal remains and the burnt pieces of plastic, wood and cloth are liable to be destroyed after appeal time.
: : J U D G M E N T : :
1.A.1 and A.2, A.4 to A.9 along with A.3 against whom the case was abated are charged for the offences under Sections 120 (B), 364, 302, 201 r/w 149 IPC for criminal conspiracy, abducting and committing the murder of the deceased Sri K. Sangameswar @ Suraj by throttling his neck and causing disappearance of his body by setting fire to it for screening the evidence by forming into an unlawful assembly with a common object.
2.The case of the prosecution in brief was that the sister of A.1 fell in love with the deceased and secretly married him on 17.11.2006 at Arya Samaj,
Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad without the approval of her family members and the same was seriously objected by A.1, who was her brother, the deceased with the help of police could take the custody of his wife and were living separately. A.1 bore grudge against the deceased and decided to eliminate him, to execute his plan he sought the help of his business acquaintance A.3. A.3 also instigated A.1 and introduced to his brother in law A.5 and another acquaintance A.4, resident 3 of Nizamabad Town for executing the murder plan. A.1 along with his friend A.2 had discussion with A.4 to A.7 about the execution of plan and paid an advance of Rs. 1 lakh to them as token amount. In furtherance of their conspiracy, A.4 to
A.7 reached Hyderabad on 23.07.2007 in Maruthi Omni Van bearing No. AP 25 V 0841 driven by A.9, A.2 on the instructions of A.1 had actively co-ordinated in procuring shelter to A.2 to A.7 and A.9 at Hyderabad and also in helping them for identifying and tracking the deceased.
b)On 24.07.2007 at 9.00 P.M, A.9 punctured the motorcycle tyre of the deceased which was parked in front of his house as per the instructions of A.4 and A.5 and waited for the deceased at the tyre puncture shop situated near his residence. On 25.07.2007 at 7.00 A.M, when the deceased came to the tyre puncture shop, A.4 approached the deceased and brought him to their Maruthi
Omni van seeking to get repair of the deck of their vehicle. When the deceased reached the said vehicle, A.9 pushed him into the vehicle and A.4 and A.5 caught hold him tightly and abducted him in the Maruthi Omni van and took him to
Kamareddy, while A.6 and A.7 were escorting the said vehicle on the motorcycle belonging to A.1 and took him to the house of A.8, a relative of A.4 at Samudra
Lingapur Village, Gambiraopet Mandal, Karimnagar District and detained the deceased in the house of A.8. A.4 contacted A.1 over phone and asked him to arrange for the remaining amount. As such, A.1 and A.2 went to Kamareddy and paid the balance of amount of Rs. 5.5 lakhs to A.4. After receiving the said amount, A.4 joined A.5 to A.8. With the assistance of A.8, on 25.07.2007 in the evening hours, A.4 sought the cooperation of A.8 in eliminating the deceased on the pretext of loss of image of their community. On the mid night of 25.07.2007,
A.4 to A.8 took the deceased to an isolated place at Singa Samudram Katta, three kilometers away from the village. A4 throttled the neck of the deceased with his hands, while A.5 and A.7 caught hold the legs of the deceased tightly and A.8 guarded them with a lamp at a little distance. After confirming the death of the deceased, A.6 and A.7 poured kerosene over the body of the deceased and set fire to it by keeping waste on the body, to destroy the evidence and the identity of the deceased.
4
c)Basing on the complaint given by the wife of the deceased, Head
Constable 2659 of S.R Nagar P.S registered a case vide Cr.No. 693/2007 under the head 'Man Missing' and handed over the case file to Sub Inspector of Police
Sri Ranveer Reddy for investigation. The Sub Inspector recorded the statement of the defacto complainant, visited the scene of offence, caused enquires and recorded the statements of the friends of the deceased, house owner of the deceased, puncture shop owner, statements of the father and brother of the deceased and cited them as L.Ws.2 to L.W.8. On 14.02.2008 at 10.30 P.M, the
Inspector of Police of Task Force, Central Zone, Hyderabad who was monitoring the suspicious movements and phone call particulars of A.1, brought A.1 to the police station and submitted a report along with the original confession panchanama of A.1. He recorded the confession statement of A.1 where in A.1 admitted committing the murder of the deceased with the assistance of A.2 to
A.9. As such, the Task Force Inspector recorded the confession statement of A.1 in the presence of the witnesses Sri Tagore Ratan Singh and Sri M.R Kunal
Rathod and seized a Nokia cell phone bearing. No.9848043635 and a Bajaj
Pulsar motor cycle bearing No. AP 09 EV T/R 9175 and produced A.1 along with the seized property before the Inspector of Police S.R Nagar with a request to take further action.
d)Basing on the confession of A.1, the Inspector altered the section of law from 'Man missing' to Sections 302, 120(B) IPC and filed an alteration memo
before the Court and took up further investigation of the case. He effected the
arrest of A.1. A.1 led the police and panch witnesses to the house of A.2 at D.K
Road, Ameerpet. The Inspector Sri Asad Ali of S.R Nagar P.S recorded the confession statement of A.2 in the presence of the same mediators. As led by
A.1, he proceeded to the house of A.3 at Goutham Nagar, Malkajgiri and took A.3 into custody. He also recorded the confession statement of A.3 in the presence of the same mediators and as led by A.3, he proceeded to the house of A.4 and apprehended A.4. He recorded the confession statement of A.4 and seized a
Nokia cell phone bearing. No.9963425426, A.4 confessed committing the murder by taking an amount of Rs. 6.5 lakhs from A.1 and that he shared the amount 5 with A.5 to A.8. As led by A.4, the Inspector along with panch witnesses proceeded to the houses of A.5 to A.7 at Nizamabad town and took them into custody. A.5 to A.7 voluntarily confessed to have committed kidnap and murder of the deceased along with A.4, A.8 and A.9 at the instigation of A.1 and A.2. The
Inspector seized a blue colour Maruthi car bearing No. AP 25 M 4070 from the possession of A.6. A.6 admitted that he had taken the cell phone of the deceased, removed the SIM card and sold it to one Mouli Sab of Nizamabad for
Rs. 900/-. A.4 led the police and panchas to the house of his relative A.8 at
Samudra Lingapur (V) Gambiraopet Mandal of Karimnagar District. On identification by A.1, the Inspector Asad Ali took A.8 into custody and recorded his confession statement in the presence of the same mediators. A.4 and A.8 led the police to the scene of offence at Singa Samudra katta at the outskirts of
Samudra Lingapur village and identified the place and shown the skeletal remains of the deceased. The Sub Inspector Venkat Reddy, who was accompanying the Inspector, conducted the scene of offence panchanama in the presence of the mediators, the V.RO and village servant of Samudra Lingapur
Village and got photographed the scene of offence. He also conducted inquest panchanama over the skeletal remains of the deceased in the presence of the same witnesses as per the instructions of the Inspector.
e)The C.M.O of Government Area Hospital, Siricilla, Karimnagar District visited the scene of offence as per the request of the Inspector and preserved the skeletal remains of the deceased for further examination. The Inspector brought all the accused persons to the Police Station, effected their arrest and produced them before the Court. He obtained the police custody of A.1, A.3, A.4 for two days from 28.02.2008 to 29.02.2008 and seized an LML Freedom Motor cycle bearing No AP 29 B 9855 and a black helmet of the deceased from the residence of A.1 on 29.02.2008 and produced A.1, A.3 and A.4 before the Court. On his transfer, further investigation was conducted by the then Inspector Sri S. Prathap.
f)On 24.07.2008, the Inspector S. Prathap took the custody of A.9. On interrogation A.9 admitted committing the offence along with A.1 to A.8. He secured the panch witnesses, Sri A. Venkata Rama Chary and Mohd. Hussain 6 and recorded the confession statement of A.9 and seized a Maruthi Omni van bearing No. AP 25 V 0841 used in the commission of the offence. He effected the arrest of A.9 and produced him before the Court. He got examined the owner and driver of the said vehicle and recorded their statements. He sent the skeletal remains of the deceased to the Professor, Forensic Medicine, Gandhi Medical
College, Secunderabad for determination of age, sex, injuries, time since death, nature of weapon used during the commission of offence etc. Dr G. Surender
Reddy conducted the examination on the skeletal remains of the deceased and furnished the report. On transfer of Inspector S. Prathap, his successor
Inspector P. Krishna Murthy resumed the investigation and collected DNA report.
On his transfer, his successor Sri S. Prabhakar took up the investigation of the case and sent a requisition to F.S.L for conducting superimposition of the skull of deceased with the photo of the deceased. On transfer of Inspector S. Prabhakar ,
Inspector Ramana Goud collected the superimposition report and final medical report and filed charge sheet against A.1 to A.9 for the offences under Sections 364, 302, 201 120(B) r/w 149 IPC.
3.The case was taken on file by the learned III Addl. Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad for the above offences, numbered it as
P.R.C. No. 25/2016 and on appearance of the accused before him, after furnishing necessary copies to them under Section 207 Cr.P.C committed the case to the Court of Sessions as the offence under Section 302 IPC was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. The case against A.3 was abated due to his death on 06.06.2016.
4.On appearance of the accused before this Court, on hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned defence counsel, this Court framed charges under Section 120(B), 364, 302,201 r/w 149 IPC, read over and explained to the accused. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
During the course of trial, the prosecution got examined P.Ws.1 to 21 and got marked Ex.P1 to P.29 on its behalf. After the prosecution evidence was closed, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C with regard to the incriminating material appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution 7 witnesses. They denied the said evidence and reported no evidence on their behalf.
5.Heard the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned defence counsel. The learned defence counsel filed written arguments.
6.Now the points for determination are:-
1) Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offences under Section 120(B), 364, 302, 201 r/w 149 IPC, with which they were charged beyond all reasonable doubt?
2) To what result?
POINT No.1:-
7.A perusal of the evidence of the witnesses would disclose that the wife of the deceased was examined as P.W.17 and she stated that the deceased
K. Sangameswar was her husband. On 25.07.2007 at 8.00 A.M her husband
Sangameswar left home for getting repair of the puncture of his motor cycle and did not return home, she enquired with his friends and lodged a report on 26.07.2007 about missing of her husband. She stated that she got married to the deceased on 17.11.2006 at Arya Samaj Office, Kachiguda, Hyderabad without the consent of the parents of both sides. They lived in Borabanda for four months in a rented house, the deceased worked as a car mechanic. She stated that she came to know through Task Force Police two years later that the deceased was murdered. She stated that A.1 was her own brother. The brother of the deceased brought the motor cycle of the deceased from puncture shop on the next day of his missing. In the cross examination she stated that the deceased was also called as Suraj. He belonged to Gulbarga District of Karnataka State, he was a mechanic of remote control of cars and used to visit various cities like Delhi,
Ajmer on his work. He used to visit his native place. She admitted that there were land disputes among his cousins. She stated that she did not know where the brother of the deceased was living and did not know anything about the murder of the deceased.
8.Thus her evidence was useful to know that she married the deceased against the wishes of her parents and also the parents of the deceased and they lived in Borabanda four months after their marriage in a 8 rented house. She had not expressed any suspicion over her brother A.1 in missing of her husband either in her evidence of in her report given to the police marked as Ex.P.25. Her report marked under Ex.P.25 would disclose that her husband left the vehicle at the punctured shop on 25.07.2007 at 8.00 A.M and was found missing since then and the vehicle was brought by her husband's brother on the next day from the shop. She lodged the report on 26.07.2007 at 9.30 P.M.
9.The brother of the deceased was examined as P.W.2. He stated that Sangameswar was his elder brother. The defacto complainant was the wife of the deceased, his brother married her in the month of November, 2006 and it was a love marriage. He did not attend their marriage, the family members of both sides were not willing for their marriage. A.1 was the elder brother of the defacto complainant. The deceased and the defacto complainant resided in
Borabanda, Hyderabad. In the year 2007 in the month of July, the defacto complainant telephoned to him and informed about missing of the deceased, he went to the house of the defacto complainant and searched for his brother, but could not trace out him, he suspected A.1 and his family members as they were not happy with the marriage. He admitted in his cross examination that he expressed suspicion over one Prasad, resident of Borabanda, a fruit vendor in the missing of his brother. He also admitted that when his family members did not allow his brother to live with them, his brother went to their native place at Bidar
District, Karnataka State. He stated that he expressed suspicion against the family member’s of A.1 also in the missing of his brother.
10.The father of the deceased K. Sangameswar was examined as
P.W.3. He stated that Sangameswar and P.W.2 Santosh were his sons. The defacto complainant was the wife of Sangameswar. They got married about six years back without his consent, he did not allow them into his house, and they went to their native place in Karnataka State. Prasad was a family friend of
Sangameswar and he brought them from Karnataka and kept them at Borabanda in a rented house. In the year 2007, one day the defacto complainant came to his house and informed about the missing of Sangameswar, as such he along 9 with her went to S.R Nagar P.S and lodged a report against the brother of the defacto complainant. Two or three months later police informed that the dead body of his son was found at Samudra Lingapur village. The dead body was in totally decomposed state and only skeletal remains were present. A.1 was the brother of the defacto complainant and he used to threaten his son to leave his sister. Hence they entertained suspicion against him. In his cross examination he stated that there were visiting terms between them and the deceased, the father of the complainant also accompanied her while giving report. He stated that his statement was also recorded on the same date of lodging the report. He admitted that he had not expressed any suspicion against A.1 and expressed suspicion against one Prasad and that he did not state to the police that A.1 threatened the deceased to leave the defacto complainant.
11.The house owner of the defacto complainant was examined as
P.W.9. He stated that he was having an own house with Plot.No.329,
Borabanda, Hyderabad. He rented a room in his house to a couple seven to eight years ago, he did not remember their names, they stayed in his house for two months. The wife, informed him that the husband left the house to fix the puncture of his motor cycle and had not returned home. She lodged a report
before the police and police examined him. He stated that he gave the room on
rent for Rs. 1500/- or Rs. 1600/- per month.
12.Thus the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.9 would disclose missing of Sangameswar in the month of July, 2007 from the puncture shop nearby his house by leaving his motor cycle at the shop. The puncture shop owner cited as L.W.5 and the friend of the deceased by name Prasad cited as
L.W.3 and another person cited as L.W.6, who was shown as a known person to the deceased were not examined by the prosecution and their evidences were given up by the learned Public Prosecutor on the report filed by the police as to their inability to produce the said witnesses.
13.The panch witnesses for the confession cum seizure panchanama of A.1 to A.8 were examined as P.W.4 and P.W.11. P.W.4 stated that in the year 2008, CCS police called him and L.W.11 Tagore Rathan Singh to CCS office.
10
He found six persons in their custody, but he could say whether the accused present in the court were the same persons whom he had seen in the custody of police. Police informed them that those persons committed murder and that their signatures were required on panchanama. Police had shown the said persons from a distance, they were inside lock up. No recovery was made from those persons. Their signatures were obtained on the panchanama. He was declared as hostile by the learned Public Prosecutor and examined in the manner of cross examination and he denied that police seized a Nokia cell phone and a Bajaj motor cycle from A.1 and A.1 led them to the house of A.2 and A.2 led them to the house of A.3 and they led to the house of A.4 at Nizamabad town and Nokia cell phone was seized from A.4 and A.4 led them to the houses of A.6 to A.8 at
Nizamabad.
14.The other panch witness was examined as P.W.11 and he stated that he was the President of Babunagar basthi, S.R. Nagar, Hyderabad and
P.W.4 was the Secretary of the Basthi. 10 years ago, S.R Nagar Police called him and P.W.4 to their Police Station and obtained their signatures on typed papers. He had not seen the accused and no recoveries were made in their presence. He only identified his signatures on confession cum seizure panchanama of A.1 to A.8 and denied the contents of the said documents.
15.Though P.W.4 and P.W.11 turned hostile, their evidence on record also contradicts with each other. While P.W.4 stated that CCS police called him and he found six persons in the custody of police, whereas P.W.11 stated that they were called to S.R Nagar P.S and they had not seen any persons and their signatures were obtained at S.R Nagar Police Station.
16.The charge sheet also would not disclose as to how the investigation was conducted by the Task Force Inspector of Central Zone when the missing report was lodged in S.R Nagar Police station. On whose instructions the Task Force Inspector of Central Zone conducted the investigation and recorded the confession of A.1 was not stated in the charge sheet. The confession cum seizure panchanama of A.1 was recorded by the Inspector of
Police, Central Zone Task Force, Hyderabad while the confessions of A.2, A.3, 11
A.4, A.6 to A.8 were recorded by the Inspector Asad Ali of P.S S.R Nagar. The
Inspector of Task Force, Central Zone Sri M. Srinivas Rao who recorded the confession cum seizure panchanama of A.1 was cited as L.W.25, but he was not examined by the prosecution and his evidence was given up by the learned
Public prosecutor. As such, as to how the Task Force Police conducted the investigation in a case registered by the S.R. Nagar police remained as a mystery. The confession cum seizure panchanama of A.1 also would not disclose that it was recorded while investigating other cases.
17.The Inspector of Police of S.R Nagar P.S was examined as P.W.19.
He stated that on 14.02.2008 at 11.30 P.M the Task Force Inspector M. Srinivas
Rao came to P.S along with A.1 and submitted a report by producing confessional statement of A.1 for taking further action and basing on the confession of A.1, he altered the section of law from “Man missing” to Section 302 and 120(B) IPC and along with panch witnesses P.W.4 and P.W.11 proceeded to the houses of other accused. The panch witnesses were common for confession of A.1 recorded by the Task Force Inspector and also for the confessions of A.2 to A.4, A.6 to A.8 recorded by the Inspector of P.S S.R Nagar.
One witness stated about visiting CCS, Hyderabad and another witness stated about visiting S.R Nagar P.S and signed at the respective places along with their co-panch. Nokia cell phone bearing. No. 9848043635 and a Bajaj Pulsar motor cycle bearing No. AP 09 EV T/R 9175 alleged to be seized at the instance of A.1 were not produced before the Court. It was reported in the charge sheet that the officer cited as L.W.25, the Task Force Inspector, Central Zone expired and the said seized property could not be traced out and could not be produced before the Court. Thus, the Officer who drafted the confession cum seizure panchanama of A.1 was reported to have expired and the contents of the panchanama were not proved through the author. The panch witnesses also turned hostile and not supported the contents of the documents. They only admitted their signatures on the documents, but denied the contents. The property alleged to be seized was also not produced before the Court. Hence no reliance can be placed upon the said documents or the alleged recovery from 12
A.1. The document marked as confession cum seizure panchanama of A.1 also would not reveal as to whom the Nokia cell phone and Bajaj Pulsar vehicle belonged to and as to the reason for their seizure. Whether the said articles belonged to A.1 or the deceased and how they were connected to the crime could not be revealed from the said document.
18.The Sub Inspector of S.R Nagar Police Station who conducted the scene of offence observation panchanama as well as the inquest panchanama was examined as P.W.18. He stated that on 15.02.2008 as per the instructions of Asad Ali, Inspector of Police, S.R Nagar he along with the staff led by A.4 and
A.8 visited the scene of offence at Singasamudra Katta, Samudra Lingapur
Village, Karimnagar District and identified the skeletal remains of the deceased in the presence of the panch witnesses and conducted the scene of observation panchanama and drafted rough sketch of the scene and took photographs of the scene. He stated that he seized a small plastic burnt piece, three burnt pant pieces, soil and one ball pen from the scene in the presence of witnesses under the cover of seizure report. In his cross examination he admitted that the panchanama would not disclose A.4 and A.8 accompanying them, leading them and the scene of offence was shown by them. He admitted that the scene of offence was a burial ground. He stated that he also conducted inquest panchanama on the skeletal remains of the deceased in the presence of mediators and the Causality Medical Officer of Government Hospital, Sirisilla of
Karimnagar District was also summoned to the scene and he conducted post mortem examination over the skeletal remains and handed over them to him for sending them to F.S.L. He stated that he returned to P.S along with A.4 and A.8 and handed over them to the Inspector Sri Asad Ali.
19.But P.W.19 Asad Ali, Inspector of Police stated that he along with panch witnesses P.W.4 and P.W.11 proceeded to the house of A.2. Basing on the confession of A.1, apprehended A.2, recorded the confession of A.2, A.1 further led him to the house of A.3 at Goutham Nagar Malkajgiri, Hyderabad. He recorded the confession of A.3 and brought A.1 to A.3 to the police station and on the same day at the instance of A.1 he along with panch witnesses proceeded to 13
Nizamabad and apprehended A.4 to A.7, recorded their confessional statements, from there they proceeded to Gambiraopet, Karimnagar and apprehended A.8 at the instance of A.1. A.8 led them to the scene of offence at Singa Samudra Katta at the outskirts of Samudra Lingapur village and identified the scene of offence and the skeletal remains of the deceased. P.W.18 who accompanied him, recorded the scene of observation panchanama and also conducted inquest panchanama over the skeletal remains of the deceased.
20.Thus the evidence of P.W.18 and P.W.19, the Investigating Officers are contradictory to each other. While P.W.18, the Sub Inspector stated that as per the instructions of the Inspector, he visited the scene of offence at Singa
Samudra katta, Samudra Lingapur Village as led by A.4 and A.8 and handed over the seized material objects to the Inspector, on return to the Police Station,
P.W.19 stated that P.W.18 accompanied along with him and the accused and conducted scene of offence observation panchanama and inquest panchanama.
P.W.19 had not stated about calling the medical officer to the scene and conducting any post mortem examination at the said place over the skeletal remains of the deceased.
21.The panch witness cited as P.W.5 for the scene of observation and inquest panchanama stated that 7 or 8 years ago, Gambriraopet Police called him to the police station and obtained his signatures on some papers, he did not see the dead body or visited the scene of offence. He only identified his signatures on the scene of offence panchanama, rough sketch, seizure report and on the inquest report. He was declared as hostile by the learned Public
Prosecutor and examined in the manner of cross examination but he denied that
S.R. Nagar police called him and another panch witness, a panchayath secretary to the bushes at the outskirts of Samudra Lingapur village and they found skull, some bones, a ball pen and three burnt pant pieces, one small plastic burnt piece at the scene and they were seized under the cover of a seizure report and that police also conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in his presence.
14
22.The other panch witness cited as L.W.13, V.R.O and Panchayat
Secretary of Samudra Lingapur village was reported to have been died and his evidence was closed. As such, the evidence of the Investigating Officers, P.W.18 and P.W.19 was not supported by the panch witness, P.W.5. The contradictions in the evidence of P.W.18 and P.W.19 would also make the seizure of the skeletal bones, skull and other material objects, the burnt pieces of cloth and plastic suspicious. The admission of P.W.18 that the scene of offence was a burial ground would raise a suspicion that police might have seized some skull and skeletal remains found in the burial ground.
23.The Casualty Medical Officer of Government Area Hospital, Siricilla
Karimnagar District was examined as P.W.16. He stated that on 15.02.2008 at about 4.00 P.M, he received a requisition from S.R Nagar Police to conduct postmortem examination over the dead body of K. Sangameswar, he proceeded to Samudra Lingapur village, Gambiraopet Mandal, Karimangar District. On the banks of Cheruvukatta, he found some human bones scattered. He collected two femur bones, two humerus bones, one tibia, pelvic bones, mandible, five vertebral bones, teeth and skull and sent them to F.S.L for examination to know the age, sex and cause of death. He stated that on 29.10.2014, he received the
F.S.L. report, but basing on the F.S.L report, he could not give any opinion regarding the cause of death.
24.Professor G. Surender Reddy of Forensic Medicine, Gandhi
Medical College was examined as P.W.13. He stated that on 25.02.2008, he received a requisition from D.C.P. West zone to examine two femur bones, two humerus, bones, one tibia, two pelvic bones, mandible, five vertebrae, four teeth, skull, partially burnt pieces of blue underwear and small wood pieces with sand particles. After examining the bones, he gave the opinion that they belonged to a human being, of a single individual, male, of about 165 cms in height, aged between 25 to 30 years and the time since death was about six months prior to the date of his examination. He stated that the cause of death could not be established as no soft tissues were present and no bony injuries were seen. He stated that the probability of death due to strangulation could not be ruled out.
15
The material was sent to FSL for superimposition and DNA examination and also isolation of any combustible agent.
25.The F.S.L report marked as Ex.P.21 would show that they received the blood samples of the parents of Sangameswar marked as Item No.1 and 2 and the skull and bones marked as Items No.3 to 9 and burnt pieces of cloth marked as Item No.10 and burnt wood piece along with sand marked as Item
No.11 and the burnt plastic piece marked as Item No.12 and they extracted
DNA from Items No.1 to 3 and subjected to autosomal S.T.R. analysis, the D.N.A.
profile obtained from Item No.3 (tooth from the skull was compared with the DNA profile obtained from Item No.1 and 2), the allelic pattern of Item No.3 does not match with the allelic pattern of Item Nos. 1 and 2. The report also would disclose that Item No.11 and 12 are analyzed and they found no flammable hydro carbon in them. Thus, the skull and bones collected by the Investigating
Officer did not match with the D.N.A of the parents of missing Sangameswar.
Hence the prosecution failed to establish that the skull and skeletal remains collected by the Investigating Officer belonged to Sangameswar. As the F.S.L report also would disclose that no flammable Hydro carbons were found on Items
Nos.10 to 12, it would prove that they were not used for setting fire to the dead body. Thus the scientific evidence adduced by the prosecution would prove that the skeletal remains and the bones collected by the Investigating Officer at the instance of the accused were not that of missing Sangameswar. The prosecution failed to connect the accused with the crime or the seized material.
26.The prosecution failed to file the super imposition report. The D.N.A report itself was marked as super imposition report in the evidence of P.W.21. As the D.N.A report itself would positively eliminate that the seized skull and bones do not belong to the missing Sangameswar, the super imposition report would be of no use.
27.P.W.19 stated that on 29.02.2008 at 9.00 A.M, he secured the mediators P.W.7 and P.W.8 and proceeded to H.No.8-4-37/A/210, Prabath Nagar, near S.R Nagar to the house of A.1 and seized a Freedom L.M.L motor cycle 16 bearing No. AP 29 B 9855 and the helmet of the deceased under the cover of seizure report Ex.P.7
28.P.W.7 stated that in the year 2008, police S.R Nagar called him to a house at Mothinagar, he found four culprits whom he could not identify and stated that they confessed the offence and a motor bike bearing .No. AP 29 9855 which was present there was seized by the police under the cover of seizure report. The motor bike was not produced and reported that it was not in working condition.
29.P.W.8 stated that he did not know whether the culprits or the accused were present there and only stated about police drafting some papers at a house at Mothinagar and a motor cycle was also present there. He had not stated about the number of the motor cycle or the presence of the accused.
30.As per the evidence of the defacto complainant, the wife of the missing person, the motorcycle of missing Sangameswar was brought from the puncture shop by the brother of the deceased , but the police alleging that the said motor cycle was seized at the instance of A.1 is showing that they implicated the accused falsely in the case.
31.The Inspector Prathap, who apprehended A.9 and recorded his confession cum seizure panchanama was not examined by the prosecution. The prosecution alleged to have seized a Maruthi Omni Car bearing No. AP 25 V 0841 from the possession of A.9 stating that it was used for abducting the missing Sangameswar.
32.A witness for confession cum seizure panchanama of A.9 was examined as P.W.10 and he stated that 6 to 7 years ago, he went to P.S. S.R.
Nagar on personal work and police obtained his signature on some written papers, he did not know for what purpose his signatures were obtained, he had not seen A.9 Shaik Kaleem in the police station and he had not confessed any offence before him and no recovery was made at the instance of A.9 in his presence. He only identified his signature on the panchanama and denied its contents. He denied the seizure of Maruthi Omni car in his presence by the S.R.
Nagar Police. Thus there was no evidence of the Officer who conducted the 17 panchanama or the evidence of panch witnesses with regard to the seizure of
Maruthi Omni car at the instance of A.9 from his possession and that the same was used in the commission of offence by the accused.
33.Thus the prosecution miserably failed to prove that the accused conspired to abduct and commit murder of Sangameswar and caused his death and the skeletal remains seized by the police belonged to Sangameswar.
POINT NO.2:-
34.In the result, the A.1 and A.2, A.4 to A.9 are found not guilty for the offences under Section 120(B), 364, 302 and 201 r/w 149 IPC with which they were charged and accordingly acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after appeal time. The vehicles seized by the police unmarked are liable to be returned to the registered owners.
The unmarked case property of the skeletal remains and the burnt pieces of plastic, wood and cloth are liable to be destroyed after appeal time.
Dictated by me, transcribed by Stenographer, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 23rd day of October, 2017.
METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE
HYDERABAD
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PROSECUTION:- PW.1. N. Ravi.....Friend of deceased/Circumstantial witness PW.2. K. Santosh.....Brother of deceased/Circumstantial witness PW.3. K. Ayyappa.....Father of deceased/Circumstantial witness PW.4. M.R. Kunal Rathod.....Panch witness for confession cum seizure panchanama of A1 to A8 PW.5. P. Devaiah.....Panch witness for inquest and scene of offence panchanama PW.6. Syed Jameel...Driver of seized crime vehicle/Circumstantial witness PW.7. Abdul Razzak.....Panch witness for seizure report of LML freedom motorcycle PW.8. Md. Sirajuddin.....Panch witness for seizure report of LML freedom motorcycle PW.9.Jahangir Ali Khan......House owner of deceased/Circumstantial witness PW.10.Md. Hussain…. Panch for confession of A9 PW.11.Tagore Ratan Singh…..Panch for confession of A1 to A8. PW.12.A.Venkata Ramana Chary.....Panch for confession of A9. PW.13.Dr.G.Surender Reddy.....Examined skeletal remains of the deceased and furnished opinion PW.14.M.Chenna Rayudu, Head constable.....Issued FIR PW.15.R.Ranveer Reddy.....1st Investigating Officer PW.16.Dr.N.V. Ramana Rao….Conducted PME PW.17.Geetha.….Complainant and wife of deceased 18
PW.18. S.Venkat Reddy.....Assisted the Investigating Officer and conducted observation panchanama of scene of offence PW.19. Asad Ali.....Investigating Officer/Arrested A1 to A8 PW.20. P.Krishna Murthy, DSP.....Investigating Officer/Recorded the statements of parents and brother of deceased in view of mismatch of DNA PW.21. G.V. Ramana Goud, Inspector of Police.....Investigating Officer and collected final FSL reports
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR DEFENCE:- Nil
EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION:- Ex.P.1. Signature of PW.5 on scene of offence panchanama and rough sketch. Ex.P.2.Signature of PW.5 on scene of offence panchanama and rough sketch. Ex.P.3. Signature of PW.5 on Seizure report. Ex.P.4. Signature of PW.5 on Inquest panchanama. Ex.P.5. Signature of PW.5 on Inquest panchanama. Ex.P.6. 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.6. Ex.P.7. Seizure report of LML Freedom motor cycle Ex.P.8. Signature of PW.10 on confession cum seizure panchanama of A9. Ex.P.9. Signature of PW.11 on confessional statement of A1 to A8. Ex.P.10. Signature of PW.11 on confessional statement of A1 to A8 Ex.P.11. Signature of PW.11 on confessional statement of A1 to A8 Ex.P.12. Signature of PW.11 on confessional statement of A1 to A8 Ex.P.13. Signature of PW.11 on confessional statement of A1 to A8 Ex.P.14. Signature of PW.11 on confessional statement of A1 to A8 Ex.P.15. Signature of PW.11 on confessional statement of A1 to A8 Ex.P.16. Signature of PW.11 on confessional statement of A1 to A8 Ex.P.17. Signature of PW.11 on confessional statement of A1 to A8 Ex.P.18. Signature of PW.11 on confessional statement of A1 to A8 Ex.P.19. Signature of PW.12 on confession statement of A9. Ex.P.20. Opinion given by PW.13. Ex.P.21. Forensic Science Laboratory Report. Ex.P.22. Report. Ex.P.23. First Information Report. Ex.P.24. Postmortem Examination Report. Ex.P.25.Complaint. Ex.P.26. Scene of offence panchanama. Ex.P.27. Rough sketch. Ex.P.28. Seizure report. Ex.P.29. Inquest report.
EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENCE:- Nil
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:- Nil
METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE
HYDERABAD