1
IN THE COURT OF THE METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE :: HYDERABAD
Dated this the 17th day of July, 2018
Present : Sri. G. Venkata Krishnaiah, Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.
SESSIONS CASE NO. 31/2016
(PRC No. 50/2015 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. 15/2013 of PS S.R. Nagar, Hyderabad.
Name and description of the AccusedA1). Manam Hanmanth Rao, S/o. Subba Rao, Age: 43 years, Occupation: Painting Worker, R/o.H.No.8-4-369/F6, Site-III, Borabanda, Hyderabad, N/o.Chinna Kothapally (Village), Addanki (Mandal), Prakasam District.
A2). Manam Naresh, S/o. Sunder Rao, Age: 29 years, Occupation: Agriculture- cum-Milk Business, N/o.Chinna Kothapally (Village), Addanki (Mandal), Prakasam District.
A3). Muske Srinivas Rao @ Sreenu, S/o. Madhava Rao, Age: 29 years, Occupation: CarDriver,R/o.H.No.7-1-3/11/B, Kondanda Ramalaym Street, Chintal, Jeedimetla, Hyderabad, N/o.Regulapally (Village), Bejjanki (Mandal), Karimnagar District.
A4). Manam Ramanjaneyulu, S/o. Peraiah, Age: 25 years, R/o.Chinna Kothapally (Village), Addanki (Mandal), Prakasam District.
Name and description of theThe State through the Detective Inspector Complainantof Police, PS. S.R. Nagar, Hyderabad.
Prosecution conducted bySri. P. Ravinder Reddy, Public Prosecutor of this court.
Accused defended bySri. Md. Muzafarullah Khan, Advocate for A1 & A2 Sri. A. Venkat Ramana Reddy, Advocate for A3 Sri. G.V.L. Murthy, Advocate for A4
Offence ChargedUnder Section 120-B, 302 read with 34 IPC, 201 and 379 read with 34 IPC
Plea of the accusedNot guilty 2
Finding of the court In the result, accused no.3 is found not guilty for the offence under sections 120-B IPC, 302 IPC read with 34 IPC, 201 IPC and 379 IPC read with 34 IPC and accused no.4 is found not guilty for the offence under sections 120-B IPC, 302 read with 34 IPC, 201 IPC hence they are acquitted under section 235(1) CrPC. However, accused no.1 and 2 are found guilty for the offence under sections 120-B IPC, 302 IPC read with 34 IPC, 201 IPC and 379 IPC read with 34 IPC and A4 is found guilty for the offence under section 379 IPC read with 34 IPC, hence they are convicted under section 235(2)CrPC.
ResultIn the result, accused no.3 is found not guilty for the offence under sections 120-B IPC, 302 IPC read with 34 IPC, 201 IPC and 379 IPC read with 34 IPC and accused no.4 is found not guilty for the offence under sections 120-B IPC, 302 read with 34 IPC, 201 IPC hence they are acquitted under section 235(1)CrPC. However, accused no.1 and 2 are found guilty for the offence under sections 120-B IPC, 302 IPC read with 34 IPC, 201 IPC and 379 IPC read with 34 IPC and A4 is found guilty for the offence under section 379 IPC read with 34 IPC, hence they are convicted under section 235(2)CrPC. Accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 pleaded for leniency. This is not a rarest of rare case. Therefore, accused nos.1 and 2 are sentenced to undergoLIFE IMPRISONMENT and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each and in default of payment of fine to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months each for the offence under section 302 read with 34 IPC. Further, accused nos.1 and 2 are sentenced to undergo LIFE IMPRISONMENT, and also to pay fine of Rs.500/- each and in default of payment of fine to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months each for the offence under section 120-B IPC. Further, accused nos.1 and 2 are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years each and also to pay fine of Rs.500/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months each for the offence under section 201 IPC. Further, accused nos.1, 2 and 4 are also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years each and A1, A2 to pay fine of Rs.500/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months each for the offence under section 379 IPC read with 34 IPC. Accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 are informed that there is a provision for legal aid to file appeal and they can approach Metropolitan Legal Services Authority, Hyderabad. Copy of the judgment shall be forwarded to the Chairman, MLSA, Hyderabad, for awarding compensation to the wife of the deceased i.e, Kameshwar Rao, who is PW1 in this case under section 357(A) Cr.P.C. The remand period of the accused nos.1, 2 and 4 shall be set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. All the sentences awarded to the accused nos.1 and 2 shall run concurrently. MO1, ATM Card of Andhra Bank, which is also marked as Ex.P3 shall be kept pending till the disposal of appeal. MO3 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. MOs 2, 4, 5 and 6 shall be confiscated to the State after expiry of appeal time. MOs 7 and 8 which are already returned to its registered owners shall be made absolute after expiry of appeal time.
3
: : J U D G M E N T : :
1.The case of the prosecution is as follows:-
Meda Kameshwar Rao (hereinafter called as the deceased) was running a girls hostel in SRT Colony, SR Nagar. He was also staying along with his wife and children in the same premises. The premises belonged to one
Harijit Singh. Deceased filed a suit for injunction against Harijit Singh as Harijit
Singh demanded a rise in the rent. One Bose Babu was running a photo copy centre in a room located under the hostel of the deceased. Hanumantha
Rao(A1) is a painter. However, he started a fancy shop which ran into losses.
Then he approached Bose Babu and sold the business to him on the condition put by Bose Babu that he (A1) will assist Bose Babu daily at least for one hour till
Bose Babu gets acquainted with the business. A1 used to visit the room under the hostel and in the process got acquainted with the deceased. The deceased asked A1 to look for another premises to run the hostel. Meanwhile, Naresh(A2) who is the cousin of A1 came to meet A1 and got acquainted with the deceased.
Deceased thought that A1 was not showing interest in searching for a premises.
Therefore, he showed A1, the SMS received from the bank showing balance in his account and also took A1, A2 to ATM Centre and showed the balance in his account. A1 and A2 observed that the deceased stored the pin number of his
ATM in his mobile phone. A2 got greedy and convinced A1 that they would make
Kameshwar Rao to consume liquor and then steal his ATM cards and withdraw the money, as they know the PIN number. A2 began calling the deceased with cell phone no.8801208627 styling himself as an agent for arranging loans. A1 and A2 introduced A3 to the deceased stating that A3 is a broker and he will help in searching for a hostel. As per the plan, A3 arranged liquor and invited the deceased, A1 and A2 for the party. Deceased informed that he is a teetotaler, therefore the plain failed. Then A1 to A3 conspired to kill the deceased and to grab his ATM cards. As part of the plan, A3 informed the deceased that there is a canteen for sale in Ibrahimpatnam limits and state that A1 will take him to the spot.
4
On 4.1.2013, A1 brought the car of one Smt.Radhika and also purchased a woollen rope from the shop of Ashok Kumar, PW9. A1 picked up A2 and went to the hostel of the deceased around 4.00 pm and took him towards
Ibrahimpatnam by making him sit in the front seat. When they were about 10 km away from Ibrahimpatnam, A2 took a woolen rope and put it around the neck of the deceased and forcibly pulled it towards him, leaving no chance for the deceased to defend him. As a result, the deceased died. Then A1 and A2 took two ATM cards, cell phone and other papers from the pocket of the deceased and dumped the dead body beside the road near Paalvai Village and left for
Nalgonda. They collected the PIN numbers from the cell phone of the deceased and threw the cellphone away. A2 withdrew Rs.25,000/- from SBI ATM card at
Nalgonda by using the Andhra Bank ATM card of the deceased in five installments. A2 masked his face while withdrawing. A2 also withdrew
Rs.40,000/- from the same ATM using the SBI ATM card in six installments.
Then A1 and A2 came back to Hyderabad and distributed the amounts. A1 took
Rs.40,000/-, A2 took Rs.20,000/- and they gave Rs.5,000/- to A3. On the next day, A2 withdrew Rs.65,000/- by masking his face from two ATM’s. A1 took
Rs.40,000/-, A2 took Rs.40,000/- and A3 took Rs.5,000/-. A2 went his native place and with the assistance of A1 withdrew Rs.20,000/- on 7.1.2013 again by masking his face. A1 paid a sum of Rs.58,000/- towards installments of his car loan. He gave the said car to A3 for the personal use of A3.
The above facts revealed in the investigation by police arose out of
Cr.No.15/2013 of SR Nagar PS.
Wife of the deceased lodged a report on 6.1.2013 about the missing of the deceased and the above case was registered. While efforts were on to trace the deceased, an unidentified male dead body was discovered by
Gurrampode Police of Nalgonda District on 05.01.2013 vide Cr.No.1/2013 under section 174 CrPC. Therefore, K.Krishnaprasad, SI of Police, S.R. Nagar PS (PW15) visited the Area Hospital, Devarakonda where the dead body was present. He identified the dead body with the help of PW1 as that of missing person. Inquest was already conducted and therefore he sent the body to PME.
5
Investigation was taken up by Inspector of Police, N.Shankar,(PW16). He collected the FIR, inquest, Part-II statements of witnesses and other relevant documents in Cr.No.1/2013 under section 174 CrPC of Gurrampode Police
Station. During the investigation, it was revealed that deceased moved closely with A1. While so, Bose Babu(PW6) informed about the confession by A1 about the offence and the participation of A2 and A3. Then in the presence of two witnesses, the confession was recorded by PW16. During the confession, one
ATM card of SBI bearing no. 6220 1805 1530 0031 876, Maruthi WaragonR car bearing no.AP-10/UF-6520 and cellphone of Wyncomm make white and red colour with SIM Nos.90005 13460, 73961 87788 were seized. In pursuance of confession, A1 lead the police to the shelter of A3 and have shown A2, A3 and
A4. Then PW16 took A2 and A3 into custody on 4.2.2013. A2 confessed about the murder of the deceased and also withdrawl of money. The confession of A2,
A3 and A4 was recorded in the presence of panch witnesses. In pursuance of their confession, PW16 recovered AIRCEL SIM No.88012 08627, one Cellcon make duel SIM, net cash of Rs.5,000/-, one FORD Fiesta car bearing no.AP- 30F-1212 belonging to A1 and one Andhra Bank ATM card 4688 1705 2224 0946 from A3 and net cash of Rs.5,000/- from the possession of A1. Thus, the conspiracy to murder Kameshwar Rao and withdrew his money is revealed.
2.The case was committed to the Court of Sessions as PRC
No.50/2015. Accused were furnished with copies in the committal court. After hearing prosecution and accused, charges under sections 120-B IPC, 302 read with 34 IPC, 201 IPC and 379 read with 34 IPC was framed against accused.
Accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried and they engaged an Advocate of their choice.
3.On behalf of the prosecution PWs 1 to 16 are examined and
Exs.P1 to P21 are marked. MOs 1 to 8 are produced. PW1 is the complainant and wife of the deceased, who gave report to the police. PW2 is the owner of the hostel premises where the deceased was running a girls hostel. PW3 is the witness who saw A1 and A2 taking deceased in car and PW3 is the nephew of deceased. PW4 is the VRO, Palvai, who gave report to the police Gurrampode 6 regarding the unidentified dead body lying in Palvai outskirts. PW5 is the witness who saw the male dead body lying in the outskirts of Palvai village. PW6 is the witness for extra judicial confession of A1, who turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. PW7 is the panch witness for scene of offence conducted by
Gurrampode Police. PW8 is the Aircel Executive who is said to have sold SIM card to A2, but did not support the prosecution case. PW9 is the witness who sold woolen rope to A1, turned hostile to the prosecution case. PWs 10 and 11 are the Branch Managers, who stated about the withdrawl of money through
ATM’s from their branches. PW12 is the panch witness for confession cum seizure panchanama of A1 to A4. PW13 is the doctor who conducted PME over the dead body of the deceased. PW14 is the SI of Police, Gurrampode PS.
PW15 is the SI of Police, who issued FIR and investigating officer in this case.
PW16 is the investigation officer and filed charge sheet in this case.
Ex.P1 is the report. Ex.P2 is the ATM card of SBI. Ex.P3 is the
ATM card of Andhra Bank(MO1). Ex.P4 is the report from Gurrampode Police.
Ex.P5 is the 161 CrPC statement of PW6. Ex.P6 is the scene of offence panchanama conducted by Gurrampode Police. Ex.P7 is the inquest report conducted at Gurrampode Police. Ex.P8 is the 161 CrPC statement of PW8.
Ex.P9 is the 161 CrPC statement of PW9. Exs.P10 to P13 are the admissible portion of confession of A1 to A4. Ex.P14 is the PME report. Ex.P15 is the FIR.
Ex.P16 is the six digital photographs of the deceased. Ex.P17 is the FIR in
Cr.No.15/2013 of SR Nagar PS. Ex.P18 is the alteration memo. Ex.P19 is the
FSL report. Ex.P20 is the computer generated copy of account of Kameshwar
Rao in SBI. Ex.P21 is the computer generated copy of account of Kameshwar
Rao in Andhra Bank.
MO1 is the ATM card of Andhra Bank from A1 (also marked as
Ex.P3). MO2 is the cellphone of A1. MO3 one rope from A1. MO4 is cellphone of A2. MO5 is cash of Rs.5,000/- of A2. MO6 is cash of Rs.5,000/- of A4. MO7 is Maruthi Wagon R car. MO8 is For Fiesta car.
4.After the prosecution evidence was closed, accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, they denied the incriminating material 7 appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and reported no defence evidence.
5.At the time of arguments, Advocate for accused argued that the extra judicial confession of A1 is not proved, that the evidence of PW1 to the effect that deceased had taken his ATM card along with him while accompanying
A1 to search for premises for the hostel, is not stated before the police in her 161
CrPC statement, that if really deceased was seen with A1, this was not revealed by any relatives of the deceased, that the evidence of PW1 is not reliable, that the evidence of PW15 after recall does not show that money was withdrawn by the accused, that the prosecution evidence does not make out any case against the accused and therefore the accused are entitled to be acquitted.
6.On the other hand, Public Prosecutor has filed written arguments relying on the recovery of ATM cards from the accused and also the withdrawal of money after the death of the deceased. The following decisions have been cited on behalf of the prosecution. 1) 2017(1) ALD(Crl.) 57(SC) between Yogesh
Singh Vs. Mahabeer Singh and others. 2) 2017(1) ALD(Crl.) 353 between Arjun and another Vs. State of Chattisgarh. By way of additional arguments, a decision reported in 2010 Crl.L.J.3110 between Mudunuri Bapiraju Vs. State of AP is cited.
7.Now the point of consideration is:
“Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offences under sections 120-B IPC, 302 read with 34 IPC, 201 IPC and section 379 read with 34 IPC?”
POINT:-
8.That the death of Kameshwar Rao is homicidal is borne out by the postmortem which says that he died with Asphyxia and cardiac arrest. It is marked as Ex.P14. The dead body was found in another jurisdiction and in the inquest the opinion regarding cause of death is different. PW7 stated that deceased died due to injuries. Inquest report is not substantive evidence. For this proposition, the learned Public Prosecutor cited a decision in Yogesh Singh’s case in which Hon’ble Supreme Court observed in para 41 of the judgment that inquest report is not substantive piece of evidence and it is intended only to 8 ascertain apparent cause of death. In this case, inquest was held in the absence of the blood relatives of deceased, as dead body was unknown by that time.
Therefore, much importance need not be given to the opinion expressed in the inquest report. The subsequent PME report is conclusive about the cause of death.
9.The manner in which the prosecution sought to prove the offence is by way of last seen theory and recovery of ATM cards from A1 and A2 and withdrawl of money from the account of the deceased after his death.
10.Regarding the last seen theory, PW1 stated in her evidence that on 4.1.2013, her husband had gone out along with A1 at 4.30 pm from their house for the purpose of finding a premises for running the hostel. PW1 stated that since some amount has to be given as advance in case the building is taken on lease, her husband had taken the ATM card with him.
11.Though PW1 had seen her husband leaving with A1 and taking
ATM card with him, was not spoken to by her in her 161 CrPC statement. PW16 in his cross-examination admitted that PW1 has not stated in Ex.P1 or in her 161
CrPC statement that the deceased left with ATM card.
12.At this stage it has to be noted that it was only omission on the part of the investigation officer. There was virtually no investigation worth its name except that he had arrested A1 on 4th February,2013, consequent on A1’s extra judicial confession to PW6 and recoveries made from A1 to A4 after that.
Considering the nonchalant manner in which the investigation was done, it is no surprise that PW1 was not questioned properly by the investigation officer.
According to PW1, her daughter telephoned to the deceased and he told her that he was leaving the house along with one Hanumanth Rao in search of a building. As far as acquaintance between the deceased and A1 is concerned, the evidence of PW6 is worth noting. PW6 knows A1. PW6 was running a shop by the side of ladies hostel run by the deceased. PW6 used to take material from the fancy shop of A1 in order to sell those items in his xerox shop. A1 and deceased used to sit in his shop and talk now and then. To this extent, the evidence of PW6 can be safely relied upon. However, PW6 turned hostile 9 regarding the extra judicial confession alleged to have been made by A1.
13.Considering the evidence of PW6 regarding the friendship between
A1 and the deceased, the evidence of PW1 that the deceased had left the house along with A1 need not be doubted. This is an omission which, as already pointed out is part of the inefficiency of the investigating officer. There is evidence of PW3 also that he knew that the deceased and A1 left together from the house, but as can be seen from the cross-examination of PW3, it was the police who informed him about on 4.2.2013 that deceased went along with A1 and A2 and he came to know about the fact only through them. Therefore, the evidence of PW3 is not based upon his personal knowledge about the deceased leaving the house along with A1. Thus, the evidence of PW1 coupled with the circumstances that deceased was looking for a rented premises as he was asked to vacate the present premises by that time regarding the deceased leaving the house with A1 can be believed. The evidence of PW2, the owner of the present premises in which the deceased was running the hostel, is quite clear that the deceased approached Civil Court and obtained injunction order when PW2 had demanded enhanced rent after one year. Therefore the deceased was looking for a rented premises and it is quite probable that A1 tried to take advantage of that necessity of deceased. Inspite of the omission of PW1 to state the details in her 161 CrPC statement and in her report to police, her evidence can be relied upon. Another piece of evidence which is relevant is that
PW1 had tried to contact her husband after 8.00 pm, on 4.1.2013, but phone was not answered. After searching for her husband, she gave report to police on 5.1.2013. PW1 did mention in her report about the deceased informing her daughter that he had gone to Nalgonda.
14.After the deceased had left, the next event was the finding the dead body of the deceased by Gurrampode Police of Nalgonda District. Based on the information received from the VRO, Ex.P15 FIR was registered by the time of registration, it was an unidentified dead body. At 9.00 am on 5.1.2013, information about dead body was received. On 5.1.2013, the dead body was identified as that of Kameshwar Rao. Till 4.2.2013, there was no information 10 about the possible offenders. On 4.2.2013, A1 was arrested by the Inspector of
Police, SR Nagar Police Station in pursuance of A1’s confession to PW6. The version of the prosecution that A1 went to PW6 and confessed about the crime, is not supported by evidence of PW6. However, the arrest of A1 on 4.2.2013 by
PW16 at his residence and recovery of Andhra Bank ATM Card, Maruthi Wagon
R car and a cellphone from A1 is spoken to by PW1 and supported by PW12, one of the panch witnesses. The admission of PW12 is that he is a close family friend of the deceased because deceased and PW12 belonged to Prakasham
District and PW12 resided beside at Praksham District. PW12 stated that he knows the deceased and PW1 even prior to the death of the deceased.
15.PW12 though known to the deceased, cannot be called as interested witness, because the recoveries from A1 support the version of PW16.
Andhra Bank ATM card is marked as Ex.P3 as well as MO1. Andhra Bank ATM
Card bearing no.4688170522240946, bears the signature of the deceased.
Thus, Ex.P3(also MO1), Andhra Bank ATM card was identified by PW1.
Therefore, this belonged to the deceased and this was recovered from A1.
16.After the arrest of A1, he had taken the police to the house of A2, where A2 to A4 were present and SBI ATM card of the deceased marked as
Ex.P2 was recovered from A4. PW1 identified this SBI ATM card also, which is marked as Ex.P2. A2 is a resident of Chinna Kothapally village, Addanki Mandal,
Prakasham District. A4 is also a native of that village. In fact, the surname of A2 and A4 is the same. By the date of offence, A4 was not resident of Hyderabad.
Therefore, it was A2 who had taken the ATM card from the deceased and withdrew money from A4. Thus, A2 was involved in the murder of the deceased.
Whereas A4 had taken money which amounts to an offence under section 379
IPC. Though some amount was recovered from A3, cannot be said that A3 was having direct involvement in the offence.
17.I have already observed that the evidence of PW1 that deceased had gone out with A1 and taken his ATM cards cannot be discarded on the ground the investigating officer omitted mentioning the same when he examined
PW1 under section 161 CrPC and later prepared her statement. By 8.00 pm on 11 4.1.2013 itself deceased was not answering his cellphone. According to PME report, which is marked as Ex.P14, death occurred between 18 to 36 hours prior to postmortem (postmortem was concluded at 5.00 pm on 5.1.2013). Therefore, the time of death tallies with the PME report. Kameshwar Rao was killed prior to 8.00 pm on 4.1.2013.
18.The next circumstance relied upon by the prosecution that there were withdrawls from the account of the deceased after his death. Ex.P20 is the computer generated account copy of Kameshwar Rao of SBI, Ameerpet Branch and Ex.P21 is the computer generated copy of deceased in Andhra Bank,
Ameerpet Branch. Ex.P20 shows that there were withdrawls on 5.1.2013 also.
Similarly, Ex.P21 shows that withdrawls on 4.1.2013 and 7.1.2013. The investigation officer could have collected better evidence after he arrested A1.
But, his cross-examination would reveal that he omitted to do the necessary investigation after the arrest of A1. He did not collect CCTV images of the ATM’s in this case. He did not examine the bank managers about the issuing of ATM cards to deceased. He did not collect any evidence to show that amounts were withdrawn by using ATM cards. He collected the call data records of the cellphones seized from the possession of the accused, but did not mention the same in the charge sheet or in the remand report. He did not collect any document to show in whose name SIM cards recovered from A2 and A4 were purchased. In fact regarding the withdrawl of money, PW11 who worked as
Branch Manager of SBI, Singarayakonda stated that on 7.1.2013, Rs.20,000/- was withdrawn from their ATM Centre, by using SBI ATM card as per the CCTV footage and records were given by the previous manager to the police. The
CCTV footage is not produced before the Court by the investigating officer.
19.PW10 is another branch manager who stated about the withdrawls from Miryalaguda branch ATM on 5.1.2013. To corroborate the evidence of
PW10 and PW11, I.O. (PW16) did not conduct any investigation. However, the recovery of two ATM cards from A1 and A4 coupled with the fact that deceased had left his house in the company of A1, form an unbreakable link between the homicidal death of Kameshwar Rao (homicidal death is not in dispute) and role 12 of A1 and A2.
20.The withdrawls in Ex.P20 would show that 6 withdrawls were there on 4.1.2013 and 3 withdrawls were made on 5.1.2013. It is only through ATM such withdrawls are made in a day. Thus, definitely the deceased did not go to the bank for those withdrawls and they were made through the ATM cards.
Inspite of PW15 not collecting any evidence about the details of the ATM cards, the number of withdrawls on 4th and 5th have proved the usage of ATM card.
Ex.P21 also shows 5 withdrawls on 4.1.2013 and 3 withdrawls on 7.1.2013.
Therefore, the withdrawl of money by using of ATM cards and their recovery from
A1 and A4 is a strong circumstance against the accused. Since A2 is a resident of Hyderabad, it was A2 who had given the ATM card to A4 to withdraw money.
21.As far as A3 is concerned, except his confession to PW16 which is inadmissible, no recovery linking the death of Kameshwar Rao to A3 is made.
Role of A3 is that he had introduced the deceased to travel along with A1 and A2.
But, the investigating officer failed to collect clinching evidence about A3 calling the phone number of the deceased. Therefore, A3 is given benefit of doubt.
However, A1 and A2 are found guilty of the offence under sections 120-B IPC, 302 read with 34 IPC, 201 IPC and 379 read with 34 IPC and A4 is found guilty for the offence under section 379 read with 34 IPC.
22.In the result, accused no.3 is found not guilty for the offence under sections 120-B IPC, 302 IPC read with 34 IPC, 201 IPC and 379 IPC read with 34 IPC and accused no.4 is found not guilty for the offence under sections 120-B
IPC, 302 read with 34 IPC, 201 IPC hence they are acquitted under section 235(1)CrPC. However, accused no.1 and 2 are found guilty for the offence under sections 120-B IPC, 302 IPC read with 34 IPC, 201 IPC and 379 IPC read with 34 IPC and A4 is found guilty for the offence under section 379 IPC read with 34
IPC, hence they are convicted under section 235(2) CrPC.
Dictated by me, transcribed by Stenographer Gr-I, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 17th day of July, 2018.
METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE
HYDERABAD
13
23.Accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 pleaded for leniency. This is not a rarest of rare case. Therefore, accused nos.1 and 2 are sentenced to undergo LIFE
IMPRISONMENT and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each and in default of payment of fine to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months each for the offence under section 302 read with 34 IPC.
Further, accused nos.1 and 2 are sentenced to undergo LIFE
IMPRISONMENT, and also to pay fine of Rs.500/- each and in default of payment of fine to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months each for the offence under section 120-B IPC.
Further, accused nos.1 and 2 are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years each and also to pay fine of Rs.500/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months each for the offence under section 201 IPC.
Further, accused nos.1, 2 and 4 are also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years each and A1, A2 to pay fine of
Rs.500/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months each for the offence under section 379 IPC read with 34 IPC.
Accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 are informed that there is a provision for legal aid to file appeal and they can approach Metropolitan Legal Services
Authority, Hyderabad.
Copy of the judgment shall be forwarded to the Chairman, MLSA,
Hyderabad, for awarding compensation to the wife of the deceased i.e,
Kameshwar Rao, who is PW1 in this case under section 357(A) Cr.P.C.
The remand period of the accused nos.1, 2 and 4 shall be set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. All the sentences awarded to the accused nos.1 and 2 shall run concurrently.
MO1, ATM Card of Andhra Bank, which is also marked as Ex.P3 shall be kept pending till the disposal of appeal. MO3 shall be destroyed after 14 expiry of appeal time. MOs 2, 4, 5 and 6 shall be confiscated to the State after expiry of appeal time. MOs 7 and 8 which are already returned to its registered owners shall be made absolute after expiry of appeal time.
Dictated by me, transcribed by Stenographer Grade-I, corrected
and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 17th day of July, 2018.
METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE
HYDERABAD
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PROSECUTION:-
PW.1. M. Anjamma…..Complainant
PW.2. Harjith Singh…..Witness PW.3. N. Vamshi Krishna…..Witness PW.4. B. Chandraiah…..Witness/VRO PW.5. M. Venkat Reddy…..Witness PW.6. V. Bose Babu…..Witness PW.7. B. Mutyalu…..VRA & Panch witness for scene and Inquest in Gurrampode PS limits PW.8. E. Sammappa…..Witness PW.9. M. Ashok Kumar…..Witness PW.10. Rini Mathews…..Branch Manager Axis Bank PW.11. Y. Uma Maheshwar Rao…..Circumstantial witness and Maintaining the ATM of SBI at Singarayakonda PW.12. Ravi Erish Babu…..Panch for confession of A1 to A4 PW.13. Dr. R. Ravi…..Issued Postmortem Examination Report PW.14. Y.G. Naidu, SI of Police…..Investigating Officer in Crime No.1/2013, under section 174 of Cr.P.C. of Gurrampode PS, Nalgonda District PW.15. K. Krishna Prasad, SI of Police…..Issued FIR and 1st Investigating Officer PW.16. N. Shankar, Detective Inspector of Police…..Investigating Officer & Filed charge sheet
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR DEFENCE:- Nil
EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION:- Ex.P.1. Report Ex.P.2. ATM card of SBI Ex.P.3. ATM card of Andhra Bank Ex.P.4. Report given to Gurrampode police Ex.P.5. 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW6 Ex.P.6. Scene of offence panchanama conducted by Gurrampode PS Ex.P.7. Inquest report conducted at Gurrampode PS Ex.P.8.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW8 Ex.P.9.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW9 Ex.P.10.Admissible portion of confession of A1 Ex.P.11.Admissible portion of confession of A2 Ex.P.12.Admissible portion of confession of A3 Ex.P.13.Admissible portion of confession of A4 Ex.P.14.Postmortem Examination Report Ex.P.15.First Information Report Ex.P.16.(6) Digital photographs of the deceased Ex.P.17.FIR in 15/2013 of PS S.R. Nagar, under Man Missing Ex.P.18.Alteration memo Ex.P.19.Forensic Science Laboratory Report 15
Ex.P.20.Computer generated copy of account of deceased Kameshwar Rao in SBI, Ameerpet Branch showing withdrawal of amounts through ATM Ex.P.21.Computer generated copy of account of deceased Kameshwar Rao in Andhra Bank, Ameerpet Branch showing withdrawal of amounts through ATM
EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENCE:- Nil
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:- M.O.1.ATM card of Andhra Bank M.O.2.Cell phone WINCON M.O.3.One woolen rope M.O.4.Cellkon phone M.O.5.Cash of Rs.5,000/- M.O.6.Cash of Rs.5,000/- M.O.7.Maruthi Suzuki Wagon-R car bearing No. AP-10-UF-6520 M.O.8.Ford Fiesta car bearing No. AP-30-F-1212
METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE
HYDERABAD