1
IN THE COURT OF III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
(F.T.C): RANGA REDDY DISTRICT
Present: G.V. Krishnam Raju, B.Com., M.L.,
III Additional District and Sessions Judge,
(F.T.C), Ranga Reddy District.
Monday, this the 27 th day of December, 2012
SC No. 466 of 2008
1.Name of the complainant:The State of A.P. through Inspector of Police, Rajendranagar
2.Name of the Accused: 1. Koduru Ramchandra Reddy S/o. Venugopal Reddy, Aged 28 Years Occ: Business, R/o. H. No. 3-36, Kajivada Banganapally Village and Mandal
2. Koduru Venkata Subba Reddy S/o. Timma Reddy, Aged 35 Years Occ: Business, R/o. Guti Road Banganpally Village and Mandal
3. Papasani Gopal Reddy S/o. Venkat Ram Reddy, Aged 34 Years, Occ: Agrl. N/s. Papasanikottala Village Bethemcherla Mandal, Kurnool District
4. Mandla Sriramulu S/o. Baleshwaraiah Aged 30 Years, Caste: Boya, Occ: Labour R/o.R.S. Rangapur Village, Bethemcherla Kurnool District
5. Malkapuram Narsimhulu S/o. Thimmaiah Aged 18 Years, Occ: Labour, Boya R/o.R.S. Rangapur Village, Bethemcherla Kurnool District
6. Siddunigattu Balsalaiah S/o. Ayyanna Aged: 23 Years, Occ: Labour Boya R/o.R.S. Rangapur Village, Bethemcherla Kurnool District
7. Botteli Srirangadu S/o. Ranganna Aged 35 Years, Occ: Labour, Boya R/o.R.S. Rangapur Village, Bethemcherla Kurnool District
8. Konduri Venugopal Reddy S/o. Thimma Reddy, Aged 60 Years, Occ: Business R/o. Kajivada, Banganapally Village Yenakandla Village, Banganpally Kurnool District
3.Offence under sections:Sections 147, 148, 302, 201, 120-b, 109 read with 149 of IPC and Sections 25 (1) (a) of Arms Act, 1959.
4.Cr. No. and Name of P.S:411 of 2007 of PS Rajendranagar
5.P.R.C. No.:29 of 2008 2
6.Plea of the accused:Pleaded not guilty
7.Finding of the Court: Found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302 read with 149 IPC and 25(1)(a) and 27 of Arms Act against A-1 to A-7, and Section 120-B of IPC against A-1 to A-3 and A-8 and Section 109 read with Section 147, 148 and 302 read with 109 of IPC and Section 25 (1)(a) and 27 of Arms Act against A-8.
8.Sentence of Order: Accused are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302 read with 149 IPC and 25(1)(a) and 27 of Arms Act against A-1 to A-7, and Section 120-B of IPC against A-1 to A-3 and A-8 and Section 109 read with Section 147, 148 and 302 read with 109 of IPC and Section 25 (1)(a) and 27 of Arms Act against A-8 and they are acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C., for the said offence and the bail bonds of the accused shall stance cancelled.
MO-1-Tata Sumo which was given to its registered owner as interim custody shall be made absolute after expiry of appeal time. MO-2-chappals, MO-3 and 4-large sickles, MO-5-Jakie Rod, MO-6-knife, MO-7-chothes, MO-8- pant, MO-9-jakie rod, MO-10-point, Mo- 11-jake rod, MO-12-pant and MO-13- shirt are ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.
9.Prosecution conducted by :Sri E. Suresh
Additional Public Prosecutor for the
state.
10. Defence conducted by:Sri S. Girimoji Rao Counsel for the Accused
11. Case committed by:VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, at Rajendranagar
This case coming on 13-08-2012 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri E. Suresh, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri S. Girimoji Rao, Counsel
for the Accused, and upon perusal of the material papers
on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:
3
J U D G M E N T
The State represented by Inspector of Police, Rajendranagar, laid charge-sheet before VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, at
Rajendranagar, against the accused for the offence punishable under
Sections 147, 148, 302, 201, 120-b, 109 read with 149 of IPC and Sections 25 (1) (a) of Arms Act, 1959 and the brief case of the prosecution as seen from the charge-sheet is as follows:-
(i)On 23-04-2007 at about 8-20 am, Bobbala Nirmalamma(L.W-
1) gave statement recorded by L.W-28(A. Chandrashekar), SI of Police,
Rajendranagar who stated that on 23-04-2007 at 5-30 am, her husband
B. Ram Mohan Reddy @ Mohan Reddy, as usual went went to
Hyderaguda X Roads for purchasing newspaper and milk and at about 6-15 hours her house owner Udayasri (L.W-5) came and informed that some killed him and to ascertain she immediately rushed to the spot and found mob gathered and also found her husband in a pool of blood with multiple severe injuries and she came to know that 5 to 6 persons came in Tata Sumo and attacked on her husband when he was returning after purchasing newspaper with knives and fled away and she suspects
Bejjam Parthasarathi Reddy, Ex-MLA of Panyam, Kurnool and his associates, as her husband was once a closed associate of the
Parthasarathi Reddy and prays to take necessary action.
ii)On the basis of the said statement, a case in Crime No. 411 of 2007 under Sections 147, 148, 302 read with 149 of IPC and Section 25(1) (a) of Arms Act, 1959 was registered and the investigation was taken up by L.W-30(Ramachandrudu), Inspector of Police, Shamshabad (I/c. Rajendranagar PS), who visited the spot and examined the 4 complainant and recorded her statement and observed the scene and photographed the same and conducted panchanama in the presence of
L.Ws-22 and 23(K.V. Krishna Reddy and E.Murali) and examined L.Ws-2 to 10 (Ch. Madhu Kiran Reddy, M. Vitta, G. Jangaiah, D. Udayasri, R.
Sanjeeva Reddy, B. Chandrasekhar Reddy, B. Venkata Laxmamma, B.
Maheswar Reddy and K. Ram Reddy) and recorded their statements and held inquest over the dead body and seized the clothes and apparel wear by him and sent the corpse to autopsy and on 07-05-2007, he arrested
A-1 to A-8, who voluntarily confessed the offence and their confessions were recorded in the presence of L.W-24 and 25(K. Mohiunuddin Husain and P. Laxmi Reddy) and in pursuance of their confessions, sickles from the possession of A2 and A-4 and jacki rods from A-3, A-5 and A-6 and daggers from A-7 along with Tata Sumo No. AP 03 V 7716 from A-1 and remanded them to judicial custody and on 08-05-2007 the material objects were sent to FSL and after completion of postmortem examination report and collection of relevant documents, charge-sheet was filed.
2.The learned VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at
Rajendranagar, took the case on file as PRC No.411 of 2007 under
Sections Sections 147, 148, 302, 201, 120-b, 109 read with 149 of IPC and Sections 25 (1) (a) of Arms Act, 1959 and issued process to the accused.
3.On appearance of the accused, the learned VIII Metropolitan
Magistrate, Cyberabad at Rajendranagar, furnished copies of the
documents to the accused under Section 207 Cr.P.C, on which, the prosecution relied on to prove its case against the accused under 5
Sections 147, 148, 302, 201, 120-b, 109 read with 149 of IPC and
Sections 25 (1) (a) of Arms Act, 1959.
4.The learned VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at
Rajendranagar, on consideration of the material papers on records found prima facie case for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302, 201, 120-b, 109 read with 149 of IPC and Sections 25 (1) (a) of Arms Act, 1959 and as the offences are exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, has committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Metropolitan Sessions
Judge, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar under Section 209 Cr.P.C.
5.The learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad, took the case on file as SC No. 466 of 2008 and made over the same to this court for disposal in accordance with law.
6.On appearance of the accused before this Court, this court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the counsel for accused and on consideration of the material on record, found prima-facie case under and framed charge under Sections Sections 147, 148, 302 read with 149
IPC and 25(1)(a) and 27 of Arms Act against A-1 to A-7, and Section 120-
B of IPC against A-1 to A-3 and A-8 and Section 109 read with Section 147, 148 and 302 read with 109 of IPC and Section 25 (1)(a) and 27 of
Arms Act against A-8 and explained the charge to them in Telugu, for which, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
7.During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 19 and marked Ex.P-1 to P-43 and MO-1 to 13. P.W-1(M. Vittal), P.W-2(G.
Jangaiah) and P.W-3(D. Udayasri) are the circumstantial witnesses who spoke about the movements of the accused, P.W-4(Abdul Hakeem) and 6
P.W-5(P. Manohar Reddy) are also circumstantial witnesses, P.W-6(K.
Nageshwar Reddy) is the witness who provided finance to A-1 for purchase of Tata Sumo, P.Ws-7(M. Mohan Rddy) and P.W-8(N.
Venkateshwarlu) are the witness who gave Rs.50,000/- loan to A-1 for purchase of Tata Sumo, P.W-9(B. Maheswar Reddy) is the registered owner of Tata Sumo, P.W-10(Y. Rajendranath Reddy), is the witness for purchase of Jockey rods by A-1 from his shop, P.W-11(K.V. Krishna Reddy) is the panch witness for scene, inquest and seizure, P.W-12(K. Mohiuddin
Hussain) and P.W-13(P. Laxmi Reddy) are the panch witness for confessin of accused, P.W-14(Dr. P. Hari Krishna) is the Medical Officer who conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of deceased;
P.W-15(K. Quasim) is the witness who provided sickles to A-1 at his request for agriculture, P.W-16(Ch. Madhu KiranReddy) is the cousin of the deceased; P.W-17(B. Nirmalamma) is the defacto complainant and wife of deceased; P.W-18(B. Maheswar Reddy) is the cousin of the deceased and P.W-19(Ramachandrudu) is the investigation officer.
8.After closure of the above prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., explaining the incriminating evidence appearing against the accused. The accused denied the incriminating evidence appearing against them and they did not propose to examine any defence witness.
9.On conclusion of the trial, heard the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor and the defence counsel.
10.The points that arises for determination are:
7
1. Whether the accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and conspired together and armed with deadly weapons and on 23-04-2007 at 6- 00 am, at Rajendranagar killed Mohan Reddy?
2. Whether the prosecution has proved its case for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 302 read with 149 IPC and 25(1)(a) and 27 of Arms Act against A-1 to A- 7, and Section 120-B of IPC against A-1 to A-3 and A- 8 and Section 109 read with Section 147, 148 and 302 read with 109 of IPC and Section 25 (1)(a) and 27 of Arms Act against A-8 beyond all reasonable doubt?
11.POINT Nos. 1 & 2:
The case of the prosecution is that the deceased-Bobbala Mohan
Reddy is native of Kurnool District and earlier he was follower of B.
Parthasarathi Reddy, Ex. MLA, Panyam Constituency who involved in
Crime Nos. 227 of 2002, 41 of 2004 and was acquitted and A-1 to A-3 and A-8 are active supporters of Congress Party and the deceased due to differences with the rival group migrated to Hyderabad about six year back and residing at Hyderguda, Rajendranagar and doing finance business and used to visit his native place to participate in the village politics and during the MPTC Elections held in August, 2006, A-8 and others participated in the canvasing and the same was disliked by the decease and bore grudge against A-8. Further, TDP supporters are tending their cattle in the open land of Anjaneya Swamy Temple and the congress sarpanch and others decided to construct a compound wall around the temple by collecting donations and in that connection A-8 supplied stones free of cost with his tractors, which was objected by the local TDP leaders and when the deceased was called to the village, he told the villagers that A-8 is the root cause and he would be eliminated if he interferes in the village politics. On 02-01-2007 when A-8 was returning from Banganapally from Yenakandla village on his motorcycle, 8 the deceased dashed with his Ford Ikon car, due to which he sustained injuries, which is subject matter of Cr. No. 2 of 2007 and at the same time when A-1 who is son of deceased contacted the deceased, he stated that he would eliminate his father and as such, A-1 decided to eliminate the deceased and enlisted the support of A-2 to A-7 and in the 1st week of
April, 2007 came to Hyderabad and ascertained the topography of the marble shop of the deceased and traced the house of the deceased and on 22-04-2007 at 5-30 am, when the deceased came from his house and proceeding towards main road they followed him and while he was returning, in front of Pochamma Temple, they attacked him with hunting sickles, dagger, jackei rods and killed him and fled away in Tata Sumo vehicl. Thus the accused are liable to be punished under Sections 147, 148, 302, 201, 120-b, 109 read with 149 of IPC and Sections 25 (1) (a) of
Arms Act, 1959.
12.The defence of the accused is one of total denial.
13.In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined P.Ws-1 to
P.W-19 and marked Ex.P-1 to P-43 and MO-1 to 13.
14.P.W-1(M.Vittal) is the newspaper vendor and he deposed that he did not see any dead body and he cannot say whether one Mohan Reddy used to purchase news paper from him and he do not know anything about the facts of this case and police enquired his name when he was siting at paper adda. He was declared as hostile by the learned Additional
Public Prosecutor and was cross-examined and his 161 Cr.P.C., statement is marked as Ex.P-1.
15.P.W-2(G. Jangaiah) is the circumstantial witness and he deposed 9 that he do not know deceased-Mohan Reddy and he do not know anything about this case and about three years back, on one day, he went to take tea in the morning at Golden Palace Tea Stall at Ring Road and at some distance a person murdered and he went there and found a dead body and he cannot say the name of the persons died. He was declared as hostile by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and was cross-examined and his 161 Cr.P.C., statement is marked as Ex.P-2.
16.P.W-3(D. Udaya Sri) is the house owner of the deceased and she deposed that she know deceased-Mohan Reddy, who was tenant in their premises for six years prior to his death and about five years back,
Mohan Reddy died and she observed the dead body of Mohan Reddy near Pochamma Temple in their basti and she observed the dead body from distance and she cannot say the reason for the death of Mohan
Reddy and police examined her and the incident happened about 6-00 am in the morning and she heard that Mohan Reddy died and came out and found the dead body. She was declared as hostile by the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor and was cross-examined and her 161 Cr.P.C.,
statement is marked as Ex.P-3.
17.P.W-4 (Abdul Hakeem) deposed that he is running Golkonda Cafe at
Attapur for the last six years and police enquired him regarding the murder took place and he informed the police that he do not know and he do not know the deceased and the accused. He was declared as hostile by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and was cross- examined and his 161 Cr.P.C., statement is marked as Ex.P-4.
18.P.W-5(S. Manohar Reddy) is the land lord of the deceased and he deposed that he do not know Mohan Rddy and he is not tenant of his 10 premises at any time and nobody called him through phone enquiring the address of Mohan Reddy and he do not know anything about the murder of Mohan Reddy. He was declared as hostile by the learned Additional
Public Prosecutor and was cross-examined and his 161 Cr.P.C., statement is marked as Ex.P-5.
19.P.W-6(A. Nageshwar Reddy) deposed that he is doing auto finance business in the name of Mahalakshmi Auto finance for the last 8 years and one B. Maheswar Reddy of Bethamcherla took finance in respect of
Tata Sumo No. AP 03 V 7116 and he verified the documents of the vehicle and financed to the same after hypothication of the same and the said finance took place about 5 years two months back and police did not examine him about the involvement of the vehicle financed by him, in any police case.
20.P.W-7(M. Mohan Reddy) and P.W-8(N. Venkateswarlu) who are supposed to have financed for purchase of vehicle to A-1 and they deposed that they do not have any finance business and they did not finance any amount to A-1 for purchase of any vehicle and police did not examine them and they do not know anything about the facts of the case. They were declared as hostile by the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor and was cross-examined and his 161 Cr.P.C., statement is marked as Ex.P-6 and 7 respectively.
21.P.W-9(B. Maheswara Reddy) is the registered owner of the Tata
Sumo and he deposed that he is having Tata Sumo No. AP 03 V 7116 and he is the registered owner of the said vehicle and he do not know A-1 and police seized his Tata Sumo vehicle in the year 2008 and the police did not inform him the cause for the seizure of the vehicle and he took back 11 the vehicle from Rajendranagar PS through court and he do not know anything about the facts of the case and police did not examine him and
MO-1 is the Tata Sumo Spacio No. AP 03 V 7116. He was declared as hostile by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and was cross- examined and his 161 Cr.P.C., statement is marked as Ex.P-8.
22.P.W-10(Y. Rajendranath) deposed that he is running Sujatha
Automobile Trading Company for about 27 years and he do not know A-1 and A-1 did not purchase any automobile material from his show and he do not know anything about the facts of the case. He was declared as hostile by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and was cross- examined and his 161 Cr.P.C., statement is marked as Ex.P-9.
23.P.W-11(K.V.Krishna Reddy) is supposed to be panch witness for the observation of scene of offence, inquest and seizure and he deposed that in the afternoon time, several people gathered near Pochamma Temple and police were also present there and he found a dead body of a male aged about 35 years and police obtained his signatures on white papers and police did not conduct any panchanama of the scene of offence or rough sketch or inquest in his presence and the signatures shown to him in the scene of offence panchanama, rough sketch and inquest belongs to him and they are Ex.P-10 to P-12 respectively and he do not know the contents of the said documents. He was declared as hostile by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and was cross-examined.
24.P.W-12(A.Moinuddin Hussain) and P.W-13 (P. Lakshma Reddy) are the panch witnesses for confession and they deposed that police did not arrest and interrogate any body in their presence and the accused did not confess anything before them and police did not seize any material 12 objects in their presence at the instance of the accused and Banganpally
Police obtained their signatures on some written papers and the signatures in confessional and seizure panchanama belong to them, which are Ex.P-13 to P-19 and Ex.P-20 to P-26 respectively and they do not know the contents of the said panchanamas. They were declared as hostile by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and was cross- examined.
25. P.W-14 (Dr. P. Hari Krishna) is the Medical Officer and he deposed that postmortem on the dead body of V. Mohan was conducted by Asst
Professor by name Dr. Sathaiah, who died and he is giving basing on the record and Dr. Sathaiah issued report in this case, who conducted postmortem examination on 23-04-2007 at 12-30 pm, and found chop wounds numbering 14 and contusion of scalp, fracture of lower jaw and also found dislocation of right shoulder and depressed fracture of right temporal bone as mentioned in the postmortem report and of the opinion that the deceased died due to multiple chop injuries over the head and
Ex.P-27 is the postmortem examination certificate issued by Dr. Sathaiah and the injuries mentioned above are sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and the injuries are possible with sharp cutting knife.
26. P.W-15(K. Kaseem) is the supposed to be witness who supplied sickles to A-1 and he deposed that he do not know anything about the facts of the case and police did not examine him. He was declared as hostile by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and was cross- examined and his 161 Cr.P.C., statement is marked as Ex.P-28.
13
27.P.W-16(C. Madhu Kiran Reddy) the circumstantial witness and he deposed that deceased-Ram Mohan Reddy is his cousine and he died about three to four years back and on 23-04-2007, after attending class, he went to the house of deceased and somebody informed him that his brother Mohan Reddy died and he found the dead body in front of the house of Mohan Reddy and he found the dead body in front of the house of Mohan Reddy and he do not know the accused.
28.P.W-16 further deposed that he is not aware of the disputes between the deceased-MohanReddy and others and subsequently, he came to know that Mohan Reddy was murdered and he do not know who are the culprits. He was declared as hostile by the learned Additional
Public Prosecutor and was cross-examined and his 161 Cr.P.C., statement is marked as Ex.P-29.
29.P.W-17(B. Nirmalamma) is the de-facto complainant and wife of deceased and she deposed that deceased-Mohan Reddy is her husband and she do not know the accused standing in the public court and they came to Hyderabad about six years back and her husband died about five years back and her husband was doing finance business in
Hyderabad and her husband died on 23-04-2007 and on that date, her husband went to the marked to get new paper and they were residing at
Hyderaguda at that time.
30.P.W-17 further deposes that she heard the cries from out side of her house that somebody died and then she rushed to Pochamma
Temple where, she found her husband died in front of Pochamma Temple and she found bleeding injuries to head, hands and the injuries were stab injuries and she do not know who killed her husband and she has not 14 idea whether she lodged any complaint and the signatures shown in the complainant dated 23-04-2007 belongs to her and she did not inform the contents of the complaint to the police and Ex.P-30 is the signature and she do not know whether police examined her. She was declared as hostile by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and was cross- examined and her 161 Cr.P.C., statement is marked as Ex.P31.
31.P.W-18(B. Maheswar Reddy) is the cousin of the deceased and he deposed that the deceased Mohan Reddy is his younger brother and
Mohan Reddy came to Hyderabad five years prior to the incident and were residing at Rajendranagar and prior to shifting to Hyderabad, his brother was doing business at Yenkalapally in the April, 2007 and he do not know how his brother died and on coming to know about the death of
Mohan Reddy, he visited OGH and found the dead body and he cannot say about the injuries and he do not know who killed his brother Mohan
Reddy. He was declared as hostile by the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor and was cross-examined and his 161 Cr.P.C., statement is marked as Ex.P32.
32.P.W-19(Rama Chandrudu) is the then CI of Police, Shamshabad who is incharge of Rajendranagar Police Station in April, 2007 and he deposed that on 23-04-2007, L.W-17(N. Venkateswarlu) gave statement before
L.W-29(Md. Ghouse Pasha), SI of Police, Rajendranagar under Ex.P-33 ad he registered the same as a case in Crime No. 411 of 2007 under
Sections 147, 148, 302 read with 149 of IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act and submitted Ex.P-34-FIR to court and concerned and on the same day at 8-30 am, he visited the scene of offence and examined P.W-17 and recorded his statement and observed the scene of offence in teh 15 presence of P.W-11 and L.W-23-E. Murali and Ex.P-35 is the panchanama recorded by him and Ex.P-36 is the rough sketch.
33.P.W-19 further deposed that he got the scene of offence photographed through L.W-11-K. Satyanarayana and he also examined and recorded the statements of L.W-16, P.W-1 to 3, L.W-3-Sanjiv Reddy,
R. Chandr Sekhar, B. Venkat Narsamma, P.W-189 and L.W-10-K. Ram
Reddy and also held inquest over the dead body of deceased-Gopal
Mohan Reddy S/o. Krishna Reddy in the presence of P.W-11 and E. Murali and seized a pair of chappals-MO-2 and other material objects and sent the dead body to OGH for postmortem examination and Ex.P-37 is the inquest report and on the same day he examined and recorded the statements of L.W-11-K. Satyanarayana, P.Ws-4 and 5, L.W-14-Bhaskar
Reddy, P.W-6 to P.W-8, P.W-14, L.W-19-Maheswar Reddy and P.W-9 and P.W-10.
34.P.W-19 further deposed that on 07-05-2007 and 08-05-2007, he arrested the accused and secured the presence of P.Ws-12 and 13 and interrogated the accused and in pursuance of the confession of A-1, he seized a large sickle and Tata Sumo and MO-3 is the sickle seized from
A-1 and Ex.P-38 is the admissible portion of confession-cum-seizure mahazar and he also seized a large sickle from A-2 under MO-4 and the admissible portion of confession-cum-seizure mahazar of A-2 is Ex.P-39 and he also seized a jacki rod from A-3 which is MO-5 and the admissible portion of confession-cum-seizure mahazar of A-4 is Ex.P-40.
35.P.W-19 further deposed that he also recovered a knife and clothes from A-4 under MO-6 and MO-7 and 8 are the shirt and pant recovered from A-4 under Ex.P-41 admissible portion of confession-cum-seizure 16 mahazar of A-4 and he also recovered a jacki rod and pant from A-5 under MO-9 and MO-10 is the pant in pursuance of confession of A-5 and the admissible portion of confession-cum-seizure mahazar of A-5 is
Ex.P-42.
36.P.W-19 further deposed that in pursuance of confession of A-6, he recovered MO-11-jacki rod and MO-12 and MO-13 are the pants of A-6 seized under Ex.P-43-admissible portion of confession-cum-seizure mahazar of A-6. He further deposed that he sent the accused 1 to 8 to court along with remand report for judicial custody and after completion of investigation and collection of FSL report and postmortem examination report, his successor, Ch. Srinivas, filed charge-sheet and Ex.P-44 and P- 45 are the FSL Reports.
37.In the present case, nobody claimed to have witnessed the accused forming themselves into unlawful assembly, armed with deadly weapons and attacked on the deceased-Mohan Reddy on 23-04-2007 near
Pochamma Temple, Hyderguda. P.W-1 is supposed to be eye witness and he did not support the prosecution case. P.Ws-2 to 10 are supposed to be circumstantial witnesses and they also did not support the prosecution case on material aspects. P.W-11 is the panch witness for the observation of the scene of offence and rough sketch and inquest and they did not support the prosecution case. P.Ws-12 and 13 are the crucial witnesses for confession of A-1 to A-6 and seizure of properties in pursuance of confession, but they did not the prosecution case.
38.P.W-14 is the doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body.
P.W-15 is supposed to be the supplier of sickles and he also turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. P.Ws-16, 17 and 18 are 17 the relatives, wife and brother of the deceased and they also turned hostile and have not supported the prosecution case. Then the only evidence remained is that of the evidence of the doctor and the investigation offices. In the absence of supporting evidence, the evidence of the P.Ws-14 and 19 alone is not sufficient to show that the accused formed themselves into unlawful assemble, armed with deadly weapons and committed rioting and in pursuance of the conspiracy, killed Mohan Reddyand as such, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence with which they stood charged and the accused are entitled for acquittal. These points are answered accordingly against the prosecution.
In the result, the accused are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302 read with 149 IPC and 25(1)(a) and 27 of Arms Act against A-1 to A-7, and Section 120-B of IPC against
A-1 to A-3 and A-8 and Section 109 read with Section 147, 148 and 302 read with 109 of IPC and Section 25 (1)(a) and 27 of Arms Act against A-8 and they are acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C., for the said offence and the bail bonds of the accused shall stance cancelled.
MO-1-Tata Sumo which was given to its registered owner as interim custody shall be made absolute after expiry of appeal time. MO-2- chappals, MO-3 and 4-large sickles, MO-5-Jakie Rod, MO-6-knife, MO-7- chothes, MO-8-pant, MO-9-jakie rod, MO-10-point, Mo-11-jake rod, MO- 12-pant and MO-13-shirt are ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.
Dictated to the personal assistant, corrected and pronounced by me
in the open court on this the 27 th day of August, 2012
III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE
(FTC), R.R. DISTRICT
18
::APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE::
WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHAF OF PROSECUTION
P.W-1:M. Vittal P.W-2: G. Jangaiah P.W-3: D. Udayasri P.W-4: Abdul Hakeem P.W-5:P. Manohar Reddy P.W-6:K. Nageshwar Reddy P.W-7:M. Mohan Reddy P.W-8:N. Venkateswarlu P.W-9:B. Maheshwar Reddy P.W-10:Y. Rajendranath Reddy P.W-11:K.V.Krishna Reddy P.W-12:K.Mohiuddin Hussain P.W-13:P. Laxmi Reddy P.W-14:Dr. P. Hari Krishna P.W-15:K. Quasim P.W-16:Ch. Madhu Kiran Reddy P.W-17:B. Nirmalamma P.W-18:B. Maheshwar Reddy P.W-19:Ramachandrudu
WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHAF OF DEFENCE
-None -
DOCUMETNS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION
Ex.P-1: 161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W-1 Ex.P-2: 161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W-2 Ex.P-3: 161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W-3 Ex.P-4: 161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W-4 Ex.P-5: 161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W-5 Ex.P-6: 161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W-7 Ex.P-7: 161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W-8 Ex.P-8: 161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W-9 Ex.P-9: 161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W-10 Ex.P-10: Signature of P.W-11 on scene of offence panchanama Ex.P-11: Signature of P.W-11 on rough sketch Ex.P-12: Signature of P.W-11 on inquest report Ex.P-13: Signature of PW12 on confession-cum-seizure panchanama of A-1 Ex.P-14: Signature of PW12 on confession-cum-seizure panchanama of A-2 Ex.P-15: Signature of PW12 on confession-cum-seizure panchanama of A-3 Ex.P-16: Signature of PW12 on confession-cum-seizure panchanama of A-4 Ex.P-17: Signature of PW12 on confession-cum-seizure panchanama of A-5 Ex.P-18: Signature of PW12 on confession-cum-seizure panchanama of A-6 Ex.P-19: Signature of PW12 on confession-cum-seizure panchanama of A-7 Ex.P-20 to: Signature of PW13 on confession-cum-seizure panchanama of accused Ex.P-26
Ex.P-27: Postmortem examination report Ex.P-28: 161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W-15 Ex.P-29: 161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W-16 Ex.P-30: Signature of P.W-17 on the complaint Ex.P-31: 161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W-17 Ex.P-32: 161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W-18 Ex.P-33: Statement given by P.W-17 19
Ex.P-34: First Information Report Ex.P-35: Scene of offence panchanama Ex.P-36: Rough Sketch Ex.P-37: Inquest Report Ex.P-38: Admissible portion of confession of A-1-cum-seizure mahazar Ex.P-39: Admissible portion of confession of A-2-cum-seizure mahazar Ex.P-40: Admissible portion of confession of A-4-cum-seizure mahazar Ex.P-41: Admissible portion of confession of A-4-cum-seizure mahazar Ex.P-42: Admissible portion of confession of A-5-cum-seizure mahazar Ex.P-43: Admissible portion of confession of A-6-cum-seizure mahazar Ex.P-44: FSL Report Ex.P-45: FSL Reports
DOCUMETNS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE
- Nil -
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED
M.O-1:Tata Sumo M.O-2:Chappals M.O-3:Large Sickle M.O-4:Large Sickle M.O-5:Jacki Rod M.O-6:Knife M.O-7:Clothes, Shirt M.O-8:Pant M.O-9:Jacki Rod M.O-10:Pant M.O-11:Jacki Rod M.O-12:Pant M.O-13:Shirt
III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE
(FTC), R.R. DISTRICT