1
TABULAR FORM ANNEXED TO THE JUDGMENT IN
SESSIONS CASE NO.257 of 2024
IN THE COURT OF V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE-CUM-
SPECIAL COURT FOR TRIAL OF OFFENCES AGAINST WOMEN,
WEST GODAVARI, ELURU.
UNDER RULE 318 OF THE CRIMINAL RULES OF PRACTICE.
1.Sessions Case No. and P.R.C.No::S.C.257/2024 and P.R.C.No.12 of with name of the committal court2024 of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Palakol.
2.Name of the Police station:Crime No.224/2024 of Palakol Town Police Station.
3.Name of the Accused and:1. Bokka Raja @ Raju @ DhanushS/o particularsSatyanarayana Murthy, 28 yrs, R/o D.No.3-3-4, Coop.Colony, Narayanapeta, AmalapuramTown, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Konaseema District.
2. Meesala Mavullu S/o Rambabu @ Ramulu, 45 yrs, R/o Beside Sub- Registrar Office, Palakol.
3. Gujjala Ramakrishna @ RK S/o Apparao, 22 yrs, R/o Behind Shelton Vombay House Block-83, GroundFloor, Rajamahendravaram. Now at Road No.10, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.
4.Date of offence: 29-07-2024
5.Date of complaint: 29-07-2024
6.Date of apprehension: 03-08-2024
7.Date of release on bail: Jail
8.Date of committal order: 14-11-2024
RAJESWARIDigitally signed by
RAJESWARI GATHADI
GATHADIDate: 2025.04.07 17:19:14 +0000 2
9.Date of commencement of trial: 22-01-2025 10Date of close of Trial: 05-02-2025 11Date of Sentence of Order: 07-04-2025 12Sentence: In the result, A1 and A2 are found guilty for the offence under section 331(7), 103(1), 309(6), 64(1) r/w 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Accordingly, they are convicted under section 235(2) of Cr.P.C. A3 is found guilty for the offence under section 317 (3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
A1 and A2 are sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of LIFE for the offence under section 64(1) of r/w 3(5) of BNS and alsoto pay a fine of Rs.5000/- each (Rupees five thousand only) and in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of two years (2).
A1 and A2 are sentenced to undergo Imprisonment for a period of LIFE for the offence under section 103 (1) r/w 3(5) of BNS and alsoto pay a fine of Rs.5000/- each (Rupees five thousand only) and in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of two years (2).
A1 and A2 are sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of TEN years (10) for the offence under section 309 (6) r/w 3(5) of BNS and alsoto pay a fine of Rs.2000/- each (Rupees two thousand only) and in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one year (1).
Digitally signed by
RAJESWARIRAJESWARI
GATHADI
GATHADI
Date: 2025.04.07
17:19:20 +0000 3
A1 and A2 are sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of TEN years (10) for the offence under section 331(7) r/w 3(5) of BNS and also to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- each (Rupees two thousand only) and in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one year (1). All the above sentences shall run concurrently.
A3 is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of FIVE years (5) for the offence under section 317 (3) of BNS and also to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand only) and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one year (1).
MO1-Broken two rows mutyalu of pagadalu gold chain, MO2-Four gold bangles and MO3-broken pieces Gold ear studs shall be returned to committal Court to return to PW1 after expiry of appeal time. MO4-White nighty with green design, MO5-Black colour mask, MO6-Blood stained cement kundi, MO9-Multi color designed shirt, MO10-Black color pant, MO11-White color shirt and MO12-Dark blue colour pant shall be returned to committal Court to destroy the case property after expiry of appeal time. MO7-Vivo blue colour phone shall be returned to committal Court to return to A1 after expiry of appeal time. MO8-Narzo grey colour phone shall be returned to committal Court to return to PW4 after expiry of appeal time. Un-marked property, if any, shall be returned to committal to destroy the case property after expiry of appeal time.
Digitally signed by
RAJESWARIRAJESWARI
GATHADI
GATHADI
Date: 2025.04.07
17:19:27 +0000 4
A1 and A2 are entitled for set off remand period i.e. from 03-08-2024 to 07-04-2025 under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. A3 is entitled for set off remand period i.e. from 03-08-2024 to 23-08-2024 & 11-11-2024 to 07-04- 2025 and under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.
A1 to A3 are appraised of their right to prefer appeal to the Hon’ble High Court with free legal aid if required. 13Explanation for the delay:No avoidable Delay 14Appeals as prescribed under rule: -- 319 of Crl.Rules of Practice with regard to the diary extract submitted by the Committing Court.
Digitally signed by
RAJESWARI
RAJESWARI GATHADI
GATHADIDate: 2025.04.07 17:19:32 +0000 VAddl. District & Sessions Judge-cum- Special Court for trial of offences against women West Godavari, Eluru.
5
IN THE COURT OF V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE –CUM
SPECIAL COURT FOR TRIAL OF OFFENCES AGAINST WOMEN, WEST
GODAVARI AT ELURU.
Present: Smt. G.RAJESWARI,
V Addl. District Judge-cum – Spl. Court for trial of offences against women, Eluru
Wednesday, this the 3rd day of April, 2025
SESSIONS CASE No.257 of 2024
1.Name of the Accused and :1. Bokka Raja @ Raju @ Dhanush S/o Particulars Satyanarayana Murthy, 28 yrs, R/o D.No.3-3-4,Coop.Colony, Narayanapeta, Amalapuram Town, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Konaseema District.
2. Meesala Mavullu S/o Rambabu @ Ramulu, 45 yrs, R/o Beside Sub- Registrar Office, Palakol.
3. Gujjala Ramakrishna @ RK S/o Apparao, 22 yrs, R/o Behind Shelton Vombay House Block-83, Ground Floor, Rajamahendravaram. Now at Road No.10, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad
2.Charge:Under Section 331(7), 103(1), 309(6), 64(1) and 317 (3) r/w 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023
3.Plea of accused:Pleaded not guilty
4.Finding of the Judge and:A1 to A3 are Found Guilty order Sentence
5.Theprosecutionis:Additional Public Prosecutor conducted by
6.The accused is defended by:Sri P.V.Muneswara Rao, learned legal aid defence counsel for accused.
7.The case committed by:Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Palakol
8.Date of Sentence or Order:In the result, A1 and A2 are found guilty for the offence under section 331(7), 103(1), 309(6), 64(1) r/w 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Accordingly, they are convicted under section 235(2) of Cr.P.C. A3 is found guilty for the offence under section
RAJESWARIDigitally signed by
RAJESWARI GATHADI
GATHADIDate: 2025.04.07 17:19:41 +0000 6 317 (3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
A1 and A2 are sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of LIFE for the offence under section 64(1) of r/w 3(5) of BNS and alsoto pay a fine of Rs.5000/- each (Rupees five thousand only) and in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of two years (2).
A1 and A2 are sentenced to undergo Imprisonment for a period of LIFE for the offence under section 103 (1) r/w 3(5) of BNS and alsoto pay a fine of Rs.5000/- each (Rupees five thousand only) and in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of two years (2).
A1 and A2 are sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of TEN years (10) for the offence under section 309 (6) r/w 3(5) of BNS and alsoto pay a fine of Rs.2000/- each (Rupees two thousand only) and in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one year (1).
A1 and A2 are sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of TEN years (10) for the offence under section 331(7) r/w 3(5) of BNS and also to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- each (Rupees two thousand only) and in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one year (1). All the above sentences shall run concurrently.
A3 is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of FIVE years (5) for the offence under section 317 (3) of BNS and also to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand only) and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one year (1).
RAJESWARIDigitally signed by
RAJESWARI GATHADI
GATHADIDate: 2025.04.07 17:19:50 +0000 7
MO1-Broken two rows mutyalu of pagadalu gold chain, MO2-Four gold bangles and MO3-broken pieces Gold ear studs shall be returned to committal Court to return to PW1 after expiry of appeal time. MO4-White nighty with green design, MO5-Black colour mask, MO6-Blood stained cement kundi, MO9-Multi color designed shirt, MO10-Black color pant, MO11-White color shirt and MO12-Dark blue colour pant shall be returned to committal Court to destroy the case property after expiry of appeal time. MO7-Vivo blue colour phone shall be returned to committal Court to return to A1 after expiry of appeal time. MO8-Narzo grey colour phone shall be returned to committal Court to return to PW4 after expiry of appeal time. Un-marked property, if any, shall be returned to committal to destroy the case property after expiry of appeal time.
A1 and A2 are entitled for set off remand period i.e. from 03-08-2024 to 07-04-2025 under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. A3 is entitled for set off remand period i.e. from 03-08-2024 to 23-08-2024 and 11-11-2024 to 07-04-2025 under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.
A1 to A3 are appraised of their right to prefer appeal to the Hon’ble High Court with free legal aid if required.
This case is coming on 24.03.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri P.V.Muneswara
Rao, the learned legal aid counsel for accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-
J U D G M E N T
The Inspector of Police, Palakol Town Police Station filed charge sheet against accused for the offences punishable U/Sec.331(7), 103(1), 309(6), 64(1)
RAJESWARIDigitally signed by
RAJESWARI GATHADI
GATHADIDate: 2025.04.07 17:20:06 +0000 8 and 317 (3) r/w 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 in Cr.NO.224/2024 of
Palakol Town Police Station.
2. The case of the prosecution in nutshell is;
The defacto complainant is residing along with her husband and her mother
I.e deceased Anasuya, who is aged about 74 years at D.No.18-5-7, Bondavari street, Palakol. The deceased was kept in ground floor of their house under the surveillance of CC TV Cameras. The deceased is suffering with semi paralysis stroke, so there is also a care taker appointed by them as Kamala.
i). On 29-07-2024 at about 1.50 p.m Kamala after serving the food to the deceased, came to first floor for lunch, at about 2.29 p.m, Kamala went to the deceased in ground floor along with grandson of the defacto complainant. She raised hues cries, she noticed the deceased with severer injuries in pool of blood and came back and informed the complainant. Then the defacto complainant went and noticed head injury on right side of the deceased. She enquired Kamala as to what happened, Kamala said that, she laid the deceased on bed. The defacto complainant informed the same to her husband who came and shifted the deceased to New Life hospital for treatment.
ii). The defacto complainant watched the CC TV camera which are installed in their house and found two unknown male offenders lurked house trespass into their house, noticed her mother on bed, spoken to her went, out to watch the surroundings, entered the hall and with an intent to rob her, attempt to cause death by pressing her neck, smothered with pillow on her face forcibly, among them A1 went to the backyard brought a cement bed support stone with intent to murder her hurdly beat her and thereby causing severe multiple bleeding injury on right side of the head and robbed away two rows gold chain from her neck weighing about 15 grams, four gold bangles from two hands weighing about 32 grams, ear studs weighing about 700 grams and also committed theft of
Rs.15000/- from the purse and mobile phone. Thereafter, the offender worn blue
Digitally signed by
RAJESWARIRAJESWARI
GATHADI
GATHADI
Date: 2025.04.07
17:20:12 +0000 9 shirt and black pants laid on the deceased and committed rape on her.
3.Basing on the report, a case was registered in Cr.No.224/2024 of
Palakol Town Police Station for the offence under section 331(7), 103(1), 309(6), 64(1) and 317 (3) r/w 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 by the investigating officer and investigated.
4.During investigation, the LW32-K.Manga Devi, the then Inspector of
Police, Palakol Town PS visited the scene of offence having observed the same, seized material objects I.e 1) Pale white color and light green flower design nighty with blood stains, 2) Cement bed support stone (Kundi) with blood stains earth controller 3) blood samples collected from bed mattress, 4) blood sample collected near bed floor tiles and 5) black color mask under cover of mediators report, got drafted scene observation report, obtained certificate under section 63 of BSA certificate from the complainant who furnished that the CC TV footage copy is extracted from original, seized mask wore by A1, got photographed the scene of offence, drew rough sketch of the scene of offence and Inquest was held over the dead body of the deceased and also conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased.
5.LW12-SI of Police, FB Bureau collected chance prints from the scene of offence developed the same and FP result that the finger prints are matched with finger prints of A1. Hence, A1 identified with help of finger prints result. LW32 showed the photos of A1 and A2 which was collected from CC TV footages to the people nearby the scene of offence where LW10 identified A1 that he purchased mask at her shop very prior to the offence. On 03-08-2024 A1 to A3 are arrested in the presence of mediators where they have confessed about the commission of offence. LW32 seized the stolen the property from the possession of A1 to A3
I.e Two gold bangles weighing about 17.5 grams, 2) gold ear stud pieces weighing about 600 mgs from A1, two rows gold chain with white red and gold color designed pearl weighing about 15.900 mg and Narzo moss color touch
Digitally signed RAJESWARIby RAJESWARI
GATHADI
GATHADI
Date: 2025.04.07
17:20:19 +0000 10 mobile from A2 and two gold bangles weighing about 17.500 grams from A3 under cover of mediators report. A1 to A3 are forwarded to Court for Judicial remand. A1 was forwarded to Government Hospital, Kakindada for potency test.
Thereafter, recovery the property from the possession of accused for which test of identification of parade was conducted by LW27-Bhavana Jogarao and LW29-
Chettajallu Subbarao in which the defacto complainant identified gold articles which are stolen properties. After receipt of RFSL report and after completion of investigation the investigating officer laid charge sheet against the accused.
6.The learned Addl.Civil Judge (Junior Division), Palakol took cognizance for the offence U/s. 331(7), 103(1), 309(6), 64(1) and 317 (3) r/w 3(5) of
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 assigned P.R.C.No.14/2018 and issued summons to the accused.
7.On appearance of the accused, the trial Court furnished copies of case documents to the accused as required U/s.207 of Cr.P.C. After observing all the legal procedure, this case was committed to the Court of Sessions by the learned trial Judge U/s.209 Cr.P.C. proceedings. The Hon’ble Prl.District Court assigned this case as S.C.No.257/2024 and made over to V Additional District Court, Eluru, for trial and disposal according to Law.
8.After receipt of record and on appearance of accused having heard them and learned Addl.PP, this court framed charges U/Sec. 331(7), 103(1), 309(6), 64(1) and 317 (3) r/w 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 against accused read over and explained to them in Telugu U/Sec.228 (2) Cr.P.C., for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
9.In the course of trial, prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.27 and got marked Exhibits P1 to P27 and MO1 to MO12 are marked. On behalf of defence,
Ex.D1 to Ex.D3 are marked.
10.On closure of prosecution evidence accused were examined U/Sec. 313
Cr.P.C., explaining the incriminating circumstances against them. Accused denied
Digitally signed RAJESWARIby RAJESWARI
GATHADI
GATHADI
Date: 2025.04.07
17:20:27 +0000 11 the incriminating evidence spoken against them and reported no defence evidence.
11. Heard the learned Additional Public prosecutor and the counsel for the accused.
12. Now the points for determination are :
1. Whether A1 and A2 committed house lurking trespass, if so, whether the accused are liable for punishment for the offence undersection 331(7) r/w 3(5) of BNS ?
2. Whether A1 and A2 with common intention murdered the deceased, if so, whether the accused are liable for punishment for the offence under section 103(1) r/w 3(5) of BNS?
3. Whether A1 and A2 committed robbery of gold articles and cash of Rs.15000/- and mobile phone from the house of deceased, if so, whether the accused are liable for punishment for the offence under section 309(6) r/w 3(5) of BNS?
4. Whether A1 and A2 committed rape on the deceased with common intention, if so, whether the accused are liable for punishment for the offence under section 64(1) r/w 3(5) of BNS?
5. Whether A3 dishonestly retains the stolen property with an intent to sell the property, if so, whether the accused is liable for punishment for the offence under section 317 (3) of of BNS?
13. POINTS 1 & 3::-
To prove its case the prosecution has examined PW.1 to PW.27 and got marked Exhibits P1 to P27 and MO1 to MO12 are marked. On behalf of defence,
Ex.D1 to Ex.D3 are marked.
14.The learned APP in the written arguments has contended that the evidence of all the prosecution witnesses clearly deposing about they watching
CC TV video footage in which they have noticed A1 and A2 entering into the house of the deceased Anasuya, A1 bet her with cement stone, A2 was catching hold of her when A1 was beating her and also they have seen that A2 committing theft of the cell phone. A1 entering into the room and bringing a purse which
RAJESWARIDigitally signed by
RAJESWARI GATHADI
GATHADIDate: 2025.04.07 17:20:35 +0000 12 contains cash and throwing it on the sofa and the same was also committed theft, they both acted in furtherance of common intention and the injuries caused by the accused, the deceased death occurred while undergoing treatment. ExP3/pen- drive clearly establishes the same and ExP25/63 (4)(C) BSA certificate and
ExP27/63(4)(c) BSA certificate which are the certificates issued by Pw1 being the owner of the house and the CC TV camera and the person who have obstructed the CC TV footages from the drive to the pen drive which is marked as
ExP2/63 of BSA certificate and Ex/P4/63 (4) (C) BSA certificate. So, the perusal of the video footage clearly establishes the case of prosecution and the recovery of the property from the possession of A1 and A2 which is proved by way of mediator’s report/Ex.P14 and ExP15/test of identification parade conducted on the property recovery from the possession of A1 and A2 which were identified by
Pw1. All these aspects clearly establishes the case against the accused under section 331(7) and 309(6) of BNS, Therefore, A1 is liable for conviction.
15.On the other hand, the learned legal aid defence counsel for accused has contended that there is no eye witnesses to the said offence, all the witnesses evidence is only based on watching the CC TV video footage. There are number of discrepancies in the evidence of all the prosecution witnesses. In
ExP2 and Ex.P4 cannot be looked into as the prosecution does not proved from which camera footages are recorded and the evidence of Pw2 has to be totally brushed aside as he is not a competent person to extract the CC TV footages and the IO also admitted that there are experts in the department to extract the
CC TV footages, in such case as to why Pw2 assitance has been taken as a person to extract the CC TV footages when he is not a qualified person. So, in these circumstances the CC TV footages cannot be looked into.
16.He further contended that the recovery of property from the possession of A1 and A2 is not proved and the mediators have not spoken about arrival of the appraiser at the scene of offence. The evidence of Pw11 cannot be considered as prosecution failed to prove his presence, he is only a chance
Digitally signed by
RAJESWARIRAJESWARI
GATHADI
GATHADI
Date: 2025.04.07
17:20:41 +0000 13 witness and Pw12’s evidence is noway useful to the prosecution as he was standing at a distance he is not present near the police when they apprehended
A1 to A3 and recovery of the property, he has not spoken about what are the exact property seized from the possession of the accused. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to establish the case against the accused and the test of identification parade conducted for the property is not according to the procedure as the witness stated that the properties are the rolled gold ornaments kept along with gold ornaments, so it is not as per the procedure. So, the prosecution has failed to prove the offence against the accused. Therefore, A1 and A2 are entitled for acquittal.
17.Taking into this contention of the learned APP and learned counsel for accused the evidence on record is to be viewed.
18.Before venturing evidence of the case. It is necessary to go through the section 331(7) and 309 (6) of BNS.
Definition of Section 330 BNS (1) Whoever commits house-trespass having taken precautions to conceal such house-trespass from some person who has a right to exclude or eject the trespasser from the building, tent or vessel which is the subject of the trespass, is said to commit lurking house-trespass
Section 331 – Punishment for house-trespass or house breaking.
Whoever, whilst committing lurking house-trespass or house- breaking, causes grievous hurt to any person or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt to any person, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 309 – Robbery.
If any person, in committing or in attempting to commit robbery, voluntarily causes hurt, such person, and any other person jointly concerned in committing or attempting to commit such robbery,
Digitally signed by
RAJESWARIRAJESWARI
GATHADI
GATHADI
Date: 2025.04.07
17:20:49 +0000 14 shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
19.Now, the perusal of the section 303 of IPC defines theft, to prove theft there should be dishonest intention to take away the movable property from the possession of the persons. In this case as per Ex.P3/video footage it has been clearly noticed that both A1 and A2 entered into the house initially, they speak to the deceased, deceased making some gesture and showing the upstairs though the voice is not audible. It is to be noted that as soon as they entered into the house, A2 lift the cell phone which is kept in the open almara, thereafter they have spoken to the deceased and they returned at 2.04 p.m in the gap of 2 minutes. Thereafter, they go back and comes again they entered the house goes near the deceased, A1 suddenly closed her mouth and bends her back, thereafter, he sits on her with both side legs on her stomach and tightly closed her mouth when she raised cries, both A1 and A2 tried to close her mouth with pillow and thereafter as she was raising cries A1 goes bring a cement stone and bet the deceased indiscriminately when she was in a pool of blood, A1 enters into the room, he searched in the room, gets a purse from first room from the side of deceased bed and brings a purse and throws it on the sofa. A2 picks up the purse takes the cash from the purse and put it in his pocket. After beating the deceased both have jointly snatched something from the hands of the deceased and also from the neck and A1 later even removes the ear studs of the deceased.
So, this is what spoken by Pw1, PW2, PW5 to PW7 have clearly and categorically spoken about watching the CC TV footage in the cell phone of Pw1 and they have also clearly identified A1 and A2 as to the persons who have entered into the house and have committed theft of the property and causing injuries to the deceased.
20.The evidence of Pw3, PW4 and PW23 came to know about the offence through PW1. Pw3 is the son in law of the deceased, PW4 is the care taker and
Digitally signed by
RAJESWARIRAJESWARI
GATHADI
GATHADI
Date: 2025.04.07
17:20:59 +0000 15 Pw23 is the grand-son of the deceased, they are only hearsay witnesses. This is the evidence with regard to accused committing house lurking trespass and committing theft and in that process they have voluntarily caused hurt to the deceased. Though the injury caused by A1, A2 was holding her by smothering her mouth with a pillow which shows a common intention in committing the robbery. So, the prosecution has proved to the extent of accused entering into the house committing theft of the property and in that process also causing injuries to the deceased. So, A1 and A2 committed house lurking trespass has been clearly established by watching in CC TV footage video.
21.Now, with regard to recovery of the property is concerned. The learned legal aid defence counsel has contended that the mediators have not spoken about arrival of the appraiser. Here because minor discrepancies the entire evidence cannot be brushed aside.
22.Now, coming to the arrest of the accused and recovery of property is concerned. Now, Pw11 who says that on 03-08-2024 he went to purchase fish market at Palakollu. Pw12 is a chicken shop owner at Palakollu fish market.
PW12 has deposed that he opens shop from 9am to 7pm on 03-08-2024 he observed the police jeep coming from the way behind his shop. PW11 and PW12 deposed that at that time police came from backside of the market, on seeing
Jeep, three persons hurried, police surrendered them and enquired them, some gold, silver articles and mobile phone were taken from that persons and they were speaking something. They came to know that among them two persons attacked aged woman killed her and taken away golden and silver ornaments.
The C.I of police asked them to stay there for sometime, thereafter police examined them. They can identify the persons whom police have questioned, witness identified A1 to A3 in the court hall. Coming to cross examination they stated that Palakollu fish market is a busy locality and they do not know the name of the persons who is selling fish. In the cross examination they have stated that
SI of police, CI of police and four constables were present at that time it took
RAJESWARIDigitally signed by
RAJESWARI GATHADI
GATHADIDate: 2025.04.07 17:21:06 +0000 16 about 2 hours for the police to write some report until then they were waiting they were at the shop. They do not know the details of the report and gold and silver articles. They have not stated the identification particulars of the accused to the police. They have not observed the cell phone and they cannot say the company name or model name of the cell phone. In their presence police have not called any person upon whom the attack was made, they have not enquired about the names of the VRO’s. So, this aspect elicited in the cross examination of the witnesses does not in any way shakes their evidence as the witnesses are examined only to identify the accused at arrest of the accused, they have nothing to do with the identification of the property, to that extent of identifying the accused is concerned, their evidence is unshaken. Though it was elicited that they have not stated the identification particulars of the accused. Here it is to be noted they are only witnesses to prove the arrest of the accused, they need not disclose the identification particulars of the accused as not basing on their identification particulars, police is going to identify the accused, accused have been already traced.
23.Pw13 is the person, who appraised the gold articles at the place of apprehension of accused. He has spoken to the same aspect but he has stated that he knows Pw3 as Pw3 has also a jewellery shop. He has spoken about measuring the gold and silver articles. He also deposed that one of the ear stud is broken. He identified A1 to A3. Coming to cross examination it was elicited that
Pw3 is one of the member of Varthaka Sangam. PW3 is residing Bondavari street. He has not stated before police that two of the accused attacked the lady at Guddvarapu veedhi. Ex.D3 is marked as contradiction. Ex.D3 does not have the accused in any way useful as this witness is examined only to the extent of apprehencing weighing the articles which were recovered from the possession of
A1 to A3. Further he also stated that he does not know about the alleged incident took place in the house of Pw3 prior to attending of the weighing articles. It is crucial to be noted that he stated that owner of the house was not present at the
RAJESWARIDigitally signed by
RAJESWARI GATHADI
GATHADIDate: 2025.04.07 17:21:12 +0000 17 time of weighing articles. It was elicited that he has not given any slip with the stamp of his shop to police confirming the weight, he took about one hour for the weighing process, his shop is at walkable distance to the fish market and the weighing was done at the fish market. VRO has handed over the articles to him.
He does not know how they got custody of the articles. So, it is also unshaken by way of cross examination though ExD2 marked it is no way helpful to the accused.
24.Pw22 is the person in whose presence the scene of offence was observed and the CC Tv footage was obtained by the police. He has spoken to the same effect. ExP10 is the scene observation report which speaks about the existence of CC Tv footages. He has also observed the CC TV footages and he has seen two persons wearing white shirt and wearing blue shirt has spoken something to the deceased in the CC Tv footages and he also identifies A1 and
A2 in the court hall whom he has seen in CC TV footages. It was suggested to him that he has never seen accused taking gold ornaments from the deceased in
CC Tv footage which he denied. It was suggested to him that he has prepared scene observation report as directed by the police. So, the examination of this witness proved the scene of offence.
25.Pw25 is the VRO in whose presence accused were arrested and property was recovered from their possession. He has deposed about surrendered the accused on which accused confession about commission of the offence and from the possession of the person, who disclosed his identity as
Bokka Raja @ Raju @ Dhanush has confessed about the offence, silver articles, a vivo phone and 2 gold bangles were seized and from the person who disclosed his identity as Meesala Mavulu has confession about the offence one cell phone and one gold chain were seized from his possession and the third person disclosed his identity as Gurajada Ramakrishna, he confessed about A1 giving him two bangles to him to sell the same and two gold bangles was seized from his possession. All the articles were seized and ExP13 marked through him in the
Digitally signed by
RAJESWARIRAJESWARI
GATHADI
GATHADI
Date: 2025.04.07
17:21:18 +0000 18 part of the mediator’s report. MO7 is the vivo blue colour phone and MO8 is the
Narzo grey colour phone. He also identified MO1 to MO3. He further deposed that accused have taken all of them to Bramhanandareddy colony behind the
Sub-Registrar office and picked up a bag from the sun shade of the brick which is black in colour and there are two covers in each and there is a bag each cover contains one pair of clothes, blue colour check shirt, black pant and a small phone book in the pocket of behind and another cover contains white shirt and dark blue colour pant of A2. ExP14 is the part of the mediator’s report. MO9 is the blue coloured check shirt, MO10 is the black pant, M011 is the white shirt and
M012 is the dark blue colour pant). He also deposed that on 30-08-2024 CI of police asked him to conduct test of identification parade for the property which was seized from the possession of the accused, accordingly he has conducted test of identification parade and Pw1 attended near the Assistant Engineers
Office near Lakulu and identified the property and the same was reduced into the writings. Ex.P15 is the test of identification of parade. Now, coming to the cross examination it was elicited that police have issued summons to him to act as a mediator. It was elicited that separate confession was not recorded for each accused. The detailed description of MO1 and MO2 are not mentioned in ExP30.
The perusal of ExP30 clearly shows that A1 has given two gold bangles and broken ear studs and also a cell phone. A2 has given a cell phone and broken two rows gold chain and A3 has given two bangles. This description is sufficient to match on MO1 to MO3 and moreover, MO1 to MO3 are also identified by PW1.
He was cross examined on the aspect whether anyone else was requested to act as a mediator in his presence which is not material to disprove the case of prosecution.
26.He further cross examined on the aspect of who was in the custody of gold ornaments from the date of recovery till the date of conducting test of identification parade. He stated that CI of police in the custody of the property.
The other articles provided by the police are rolled gold. Except this nothing was
RAJESWARIDigitally signed by
RAJESWARI GATHADI
GATHADIDate: 2025.04.07 17:21:24 +0000 19 elicited in his cross examination. Further he also identified the gold chain among the other chains in the photographs which is shown in MO1. The witness identified the second chain as MO1. So, his identifying the gold also establishes the case of prosecution.
27.The evidence of PW1 and ExP1/report clearly establishes that the gold articles missing. Ex.P1/report there is a clear mentioned about 2 rows of gold chain, four gold bangles and ear rings, the description of property is very clearly mentioned in ExP1. Pw1 has also spoken the same in her evidence. MO1 to
MO3 are marked through her. Coming to cross examination it was elicited that she has no personal acquittance with the VRO who conducted test of identification parade. She has not enquired the VRO as to how he got possession of gold ornaments placed in the test identification parade/ExP15. She also given a very positive answer that the gold ornaments were not handed over to her after the test of identification parade. So, this evidence elicited in the cross examination of PW1 no way useful to the case of the accused as she has clearly spoken about participating in the test of identification parade, her signature is also shown in ExP15 which establishes that the test of identification parade was held, it is not the duty of Pw1 to know how the VRO has got possession of MO1 to MO3. On the aspect the prosecution has to prove that the test of identification parade was held, PW1 participated in test of identification parade same has been proved.
28.The prosecution has proved accused entering into the house, causing injury which is leads to death of the deceased and committing roberry of cell phone and cash. So, the prosecution has clearly establish the case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Points answered accordingly.
POINT NO.2::-
29.The learned APP contended in his written arguments that all the witnesses i.e., Pw1, PW2, PW5 to PW7 are the witnesses, who have watched the
RAJESWARIDigitally signed by
RAJESWARI GATHADI
GATHADIDate: 2025.04.07 17:21:32 +0000 20 CC Tv footages and clearly identified the accused in the CC TV footages which clearly establishes the offence of the accused. Pw8 is a crucial witness, who has spoken about selling of mask to A1, she also identified A1. A1 initially entered into the house with mask thereafter his mask fell down and his face could be easily recognised. Apart from these witnesses the scientific witness i.e., Pw10 is the SI of finger prints, who has spoken about lifting of the finger prints from the scene of offence which are tallied with A1 from the wooden alamara and the steel bucket identical with A1 finger prints expert. So his evidence has clearly established the presence of accused at the scene of offence and the medical evidence shows the injuries caused to deceased and she succumbed to injuries.
The video footage also clearly show A1 murdered the deceased, A2 has caught hold of her while A1 was causing injuries which clearly establishes the common intention. So, the prosecution established its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Therefore, A1 and A2 are liable for conviction.
30.On the other hand, the learned legal aid defence counsel for the accused contended that the time when the report has given to police and when the police reached the scene of offence. The evidence of IO/PW26 and the evidence of Pw1 is full of contradictions as to when the report has given and much prior to giving the report also how the IO came to the scene of offence and when the women PC/PW14 was sent to hospital, all these aspects have not been clearly established by the prosecution.
31.He further contended that there are number of contradictions between the evidence of all the witnesses, who visited the scene of offence immediately after the alleged incident, the time specified by the each witness is different.
There is no corroboration with regard to the time of their visit to the scene of offence and also the time of their verifying the CC TV footages. The learned legal aid defence counsel also raised an objection that what is the necessity of the CC
TV footages being observed by the number of persons, when such heinous offence alleged to have taken place, their evidence cannot be looked into as they
Digitally signed by
RAJESWARIRAJESWARI
GATHADI
GATHADI
Date: 2025.04.07
17:21:41 +0000 21 are not direct witnesses. Ex.P3/pen drive the CC TV footages cannot be looked into as the certificate issued by Pw1 and PW2 cannot be looked into as they are not in proper form. Added to this when the CC TV footages drive is available without producing the same, police came up with lifting the CC TV footages into the pen-drive which is not according to the procedure of law and it cannot be looked into.
32.He further contended that no test of identification parade was conducted on the accused which is also fatal to the case of prosecution. The prosecution has failed to prove the intention of the accused for committing murdered.
Therefore, A1 and A2 are to be given benefit of doubt.
33.Taking into these contentions of the learned APP and learned counsel for accused the evidence on record is to be viewed.
34.Firstly, whether A1 and A2 with common intention has caused injuries to the deceased and murdered her. It is essential to go through section 100 of BNS.
S.100 of BNS culpable homicide
Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide.
Sec.103 (1) of BNS::_
Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.
35.Now, the perusal of the section shows that firstly accused should have common intention of causing death or with a knowledge that he is likely by such an act to cause death. So, here firstly intention if looked into, intention need not be pre-planned, intention can be gathered then and there itself by the act of the
RAJESWARIDigitally signed by
RAJESWARI GATHADI
GATHADIDate: 2025.04.07 17:21:48 +0000 22 persons. Here, again as discussed earlier all the witnesses including Pw1 have seen the offence only in CC TV footage which is ExP3/pen-drive it is the only sources of evidence and the circumstantial evidence has to be gathered. There is no eye witness even witnessing A1 and A2 entering into the house at 2.02 p.m.
The evidence of Pw8 becomes crucial, wherein, she has spoken about selling a mask to A1, who initially went away as there was no change and thereafter returned and purchased a black mask. As per the scene observation report, the mask was recovered from the scene of offence which is marked as MO5, the same is identified by Pw8 and also the mediator has spoken about recovery of the mask. The perusal of the video also shows that initially A1 was wearing a mask in the video and later the mask fell down and it was lying at the scene of offence. Pw8 has also identified A1 in the court hall as well as she stated police have shown her the photo of A1 and she identified him. Now, coming to her cross examination she stated that Police have shown the photograph to her on 29-07- 2024 and her statement was recorded on the next day. She admitted that she has not stated any identification marks of the person to police. Except this nothing was elicited in her cross examination. So, here as per IO’s/PW26 evidence, she visited the scene of offence on the next day again and then she showed the photograph to Pw8 and Pw8 identified. In the cross examination PW8 has stated that on 29-07-2024 police came to her shop, whereas, the perusal of her chief examination shows that she has clearly mentioned that on 30-07-2024 police came to her shop. So, this aspect can be taken as discrepancy in the evidence of
Pw8 but it cannot be taken as a contradiction. So, PW8 identifying A1 initially shows the preparation of A1 to commit an offence purchasing a mask to hide himself while committing the offence.
36.Now, as from the CC TV footage it can be seen that both A1 and A2 entered into the house and tried to smoothen the deceased with a pillow initially, when she was raising cries, they again and again tried to smoothen her with the pillow. So, this act also shows the intention of both A1 and A2 to smooth her to
RAJESWARIDigitally signed by
RAJESWARI GATHADI
GATHADIDate: 2025.04.07 17:21:54 +0000 23 cause death. Now, A1 goes out brings a cement stone which is used for keeping under the bed and hits on deceased indiscriminately on the right side of her head as well as face several times causing severe bleeding injury to her. This act of A1 shows that he had intention and also knowledge that such an injury would cause death of a person and when A1 was doing this act, A2 was catching holding part of the mouth of the deceased pressing with pillow not allowing her to scream.
Thereafter, when she is unable to raise her voice, both A1 and A2 leaving her and search for any available articles in the house. So, this aspect is spoken by all the witnesses Pw1, PW2, PW5 to PW7 who have observed the CC TV footages and
PW3, PW4 and PW23 who came to know about the alleged offence, all of them have categorically spoken and identified both the accused as the persons who they have seen in the CC TV footages.
37.Further, the perusal of the CC TV footages shows that Pw4 enters into the house along with a child at 2.30.17 p.m and when she noticed the deceased, she raises alarm as to how the deceased fell down and exits the room and thereafter it can be noticed that Pw1 enters into the room at 2.31 p.m and looking at the deceased, she raised cries as to how the deceased fell down and PW3 enters into the room at 2.31.52 p.m and they discussed as to how the deceased fell down and Pw1 questioned Pw4 whether she lifted her and put the deceased on the bed then PW4 replies that she has not lifted her and the deceased was lying on the bed itself. All this shows they were not aware of what incident has taken and only after viewing C.C TV footage PW1 came to know about the manner in which the incident has taken place.
38.It is the evidence of Pw3 and PW4 that they have shifted the deceased to the hospital. At this point, the evidence of the IO/PW22 has to be looked into.
PW22 has stated that while she was in police station, she received information from unknown person through landline that one old lady has been injured at
Bodavariveedhi, Pallakol town by some unknown person then the IO directed the staff to go to Bonda vari veedhi, Palakollu. She informed the superior officers and
RAJESWARIDigitally signed by
RAJESWARI GATHADI
GATHADIDate: 2025.04.07 17:22:00 +0000 24 she also informed the dog squad, fingerprint experts and CCTV footage team.
She went to the scene of offence and deployed the staff to guard the scene of offence and she returned to police station and it is about 3.45pm Pw1 came to police station and presented a written report, basing on which FIR was registered and ExP16 is the FIR. Then she has sent Women PC to New Life Hospital. The learned legal aid defence counsel cross examined the IO that by the first time she went to scene of offence deceased was not present at the scene of offence it was about 3.30pm and Pw1 was not present at the scene of offence by that time.
Except this nothing was elicited.
39.Now, the evidence of the Women PC/PW14 is to be looked into. Pw14 deposed that Pw1 came to police station and present a report and she was directed to escort the injured woman and passport was issued to her to go to
New Life Hospital. The learned legal aid defence counsel harping upon as per
Pw3’s evidence at 3.30 p.m doctors advised to shift the deceased to
Rajahmudhry and as per the IO, she first time visited the scene of offence at 3.30 p.m by that time FIR was not registered and as per Pw14, she visited the hospital at about 3.30 p.m. So, even prior to registration of FIR, how the Women PC accompanied to the deceased is unexplained by the prosecution. Added to this the ambulance driver who was examined, his evidence does not inspire confidence. This contention of learned legal aid defence counsel has to be brushed. Mere small variation is timing of when the deceased was shifted to hospital and when the Women PC visited the hospital cannot be looked into as a serious latches or discrepancies as it is the evidence of the IO, she came to know about the offence even prior to giving of the report and she alerted all the staff. It is not necessary that only after Pw1 giving the report the investigation has to be started, when they received the phone call itself that itself is information received to them at first, of the incident and the IO can proceed. So, mere minor discrepancies with regard to time of reaching the hospital no way effect the case of prosecution.
Digitally signed by
RAJESWARI
RAJESWARI GATHADI
GATHADIDate: 2025.04.07 17:22:07 +0000 25
40.Now, with regard to the deceased was shifted to New life hospital,
Rajahmudnary is concerned. Now, the evidence of Pw17/doctor is to be looked into, who treated the deceased at New Life Emergency Hospital, Palakol, deposed that the deceased has sustained serious injuries and advised to be taken to hospital having Neurosurgical treatment. Coming to cross examination it was elicited that his statement was recorded by the police manually he has seen the statement. The patient attendants did not request for any technical assistant.
He has not stated before police that the patient came in ambulance. He has not collected the details to which village the patient K.Anasuya belongs to. So, these aspect elicited in the cross examination is noway helpful to the accused case as the examination of the doctor shows that he has noticed the deceased with serious injuries and she has to be taken to hospital having neurological treatment which also points out where the deceased received injury that is on the head.
41.Pw18 the doctor who has examined the deceased at Sai Super
Speciality Hospital, Rajamundry. She has spoken about the injuries i.e 1)
Avulsion injury right temporal region, 2) right supra orbital region 3) Fracture of mandible, 4) Fracture of right tripod and 5). Head injury (SAH). Admission of the patient is ICU as she was unconscious and she was kept on ventilator support on 30-07-2024. She was taken to surgery on 02-08-2024 for mandible and right tripod fixation which means surgery to lower jawbone which is the largest and strongest bone of the human face. ExP7 is the wound certificate which also establishes these wounds. So, this medical evidence itself establishes that the mandible is a strongest bone in the face which was fractured then it can be clearly said with what force the injury was caused to the deceased. Nothing in favour of the accused was elicited in the cross examination. Except that the wound certificate was issued on 28-08-2024 and the wound certificate does not contain any statement that it was issued at the request of police. It was admitted by the witness that she has not mentioned the age of the injury in ExP7 and as
RAJESWARIDigitally signed by
RAJESWARI GATHADI
GATHADIDate: 2025.04.07 17:22:18 +0000 26 per record the patient left the hospital on 12-08-2024 on Lama. So, her evidence is very clear with regard to the kind of injuries deceased has received.
42.The evidence of PW19/Doctor shows that she was working as M.S.Obg
Vision Hospital, Rajahmudnary to the next hospital to which the patient was shifted from Sai Speciality Hospital. She has deposed about collection of urethral vaginal, cervical swabs, pubic hair and nail clippings and sent to RFSL examination. Ex.P8 and Ex.P9 are marked through her. Nothing was elicited in her cross examination except that police have not given any questionnaire. She admitted that there is a possibility of foreign hair mixing with the victim’s pubic hair in case of sexual assault.
43. Pw24 is the doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and Ex.P12 is the postmortem certificate marked through him. The learned legal aid defence counsel reported cross nil for the witness. So, it is well established by ExP12 that all the injuries are an ante mortem in nature and the approximate time of death is 6-12 hours and the cause of death to best knowledge and belief is head injury associated with multiple injuries over the body. So, when the learned legal aid defence counsel reported no cross is established by the prosecution that the death occurred due to the injuries received by the deceased. By way of medical evidence the prosecution establishes the death of the deceased was due to the injuries caused to her.
44.Now, to prove the scene of offence firstly the evidence of PW10 is to be perused. As discussed earlier he visited the scene of offence and lifted the chance prints. ExP5 is marked through him which clearly establishes that the chance prints lifted by him and the comparison sheet of the total 5 chance prints and the chance sprint marked as P1 P2 and P3 compared with the automated fingerprint identification system data and found it identical the person by name
Bokka raju son of Satyanarayana Murthy, A/26/2022 which clearly establishes that the finger prints of A1 is available at the scene of offence which were
Digitally signed by
RAJESWARI
RAJESWARI GATHADI
GATHADIDate: 2025.04.07 17:22:26 +0000 27 developed on the wooden alamara. This circumstances establishes the presence of A1 at the scene of offence apart from Ex.P3 CC Tv footage.
45.Pw22’s evidence is to be perused, who is the VRO in whose presence the scene of offence was observed and in his presence the CCTV footages was collected into a pen drive. He has spoken to the same and he has also spoken about seizure of bed sheet with blood stains, blood stains on the floor, mask and a cement Kundi. He identified the mask and MO6 is the blood stains cement kundi marked through him which was seized under ExP10/scene observation report. Coming to cross examination it was elicited that the scene of offence was not measured. It was suggested to him that he has not observed the CCTV footages and he has not observed A1 and A2 in the CCTV footages and the scene of offence was never observed in his presence. Except suggesting him, no material was put forth by the defence counsel to prove these suggestions. He admitted that he has not obtained any written permission from the MRO. This aspect does not in any way helpful to the accused as any citizen of India is bound to assist the police necessarily the written permission of the MRO is not required.
46.He also deposed about participating the inquest. ExP11 is marked through him. So, the inquest report is also proved by the prosecution. His evidence is very crucial to establish the scene of offence he has clearly and categorically spoken about the seizure of mask, blood stains, bed sheet and the
Kundi which is used to hit the deceased and the blood stains on the kundi. So, the seizure of MO5 and MO6 have been clearly established by the prosecution from the scene of offence. The IO/PW26 has also corroborated with the evidence of Pw1, PW2, PW5 to PW7 in all aspects with regard to observing the scene of offence, preparation of rough sketch, seizure of the pen drive and certificate issued by him with regard to photograph at the scene of offence. In the cross examination of IO it was elicited that she has not collected the CCTV footages in that area. She has not given any written requisition to the dog squad. There is no evidence to show who was deputed to guard the scene of offence. She cannot
RAJESWARIDigitally signed by
RAJESWARI GATHADI
GATHADIDate: 2025.04.07 17:22:33 +0000 28 say what are the commands given to the dog squad. So, these aspects elicited in the cross examination does not affect the case of prosecution when she has clearly spoken about seizure of articles MO4 to MO12, lifting of the chance prints.
47.It was elicited that there is a CCTV technician available in their department and in such case why PW2’s assistance was examined, she has stated that it takes 2 days to secure the CCTV experts in the department from
Vijayawada. It was elicited that ExP4 does not contain what is the device used by him to download and what is the working space of the footage downloaded by him in the pen drive. He has not sent the pen drive containing CCTv footages for forensic laboratory for verifying the audio, video profile. As per the section 63(4)
(c) of BNS there is a procedure laid down in which a person who transfers the information from a device is eligible to give certificate, accordingly the CI of police has obtained the certificate from Pw1 as well as Pw2. So, non mentioning the certificate as to which device he has transferred the data does not affect the reliability of ExP3.
48.At this juncture the evidence of Pw2 is perused. He has clearly mentioned that he has transferred the CCTV footages to the pen drive through the DVR. He was cross examined at length with regard to the CCTV cameras installed in the house of Pw1. He has stated that he does not know how many kinds of CCTV cameras. These aspects does not effect his capability and capacity to lift the data from DVR to Pendrive as he has deposed that he knows the function of CC Tv and he himself has installed the CCTV cameras in the house of PW1. He has no certificate to show he is a CCTV technician. There is no specific provision in BSA that only expert has to collect the data even owner of the cell phone can give a certificate that the data was transferred from his cell phone to any other device. In such case an expert opinion is not required. It was also elicited that Ex.P4 does not disclose how many bytes is collected and from which time to which time the footages have been extracted. Though it was not
RAJESWARIDigitally signed by
RAJESWARI GATHADI
GATHADIDate: 2025.04.07 17:22:40 +0000 29 mentioned in ExP4, the perusal of ExP3 the CCTV footages the date, time everything is mentioned in the video recording.
49.Pw27 is the IO, who has filed charge sheet. He has stated that he has verified the CD and found it in correct lines and he has watched the CCTV footages and captured the screen shots of A1 and A2 and compared the same with photo and arrested the accused. He also visited the Vision Hospital,
Rajahmundary. Ex.P21 letter of advice, Ex.P22 is the death intimation, Ex.P23 is the altered FIR, Ex.P24 is three photographs and Ex.P25 is the 63 (4) (c) of BSA certificate issued by him is marked through him. Nothing was elicited in his cross examination except suggesting that he has not conducted proper investigation.
This suggestions are not supported by any of the material evidence.
50.The learned APP has contended that the circumstantial evidence is to be looked into and there cannot be any direct witness in such heinous offence against a women. On this preposition he relied on decision reported in
State of West Bengal Vs Sanjay Roy
Wherein it was held that “when the circumstantial evidence to prove that there is no possibility of any other person inflecting the injury and the circumstantial evidence have been proved participation of the accused the accused is liable for conviction”
51.On the preposition he also relied on decision reported in
The Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh
Shaik Inthiyaz Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh
52.He also relied on decision reported in
The Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Madras
K.Ramajayam
Vs
RAJESWARIDigitally signed by
RAJESWARI GATHADI
GATHADIDate: 2025.04.07 17:22:48 +0000 30 The Inspector of Police, T-4, Maduravoyal Police Station, Chennai
53.He relied on decision reported in
The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi
Shashi Sehkhar @ Neeraj @ Raju Vs State
54.The principles laid down in the above decisions are squarely applicable to the facts of the present case.
55.The learned APP also contended that mere discrepancy with regard to time of registration of FIR and the Court receiving the FIR and the time when the CC TV footages were shown cannot be taken as a contradiction, they do not effect the case of prosecution. On this preposition he relied on decision reported in
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
Selvamani Vs State represented by the Inspector Police.
Wherein it was held that “thus undue importance should not be attached to omissions, contradictions and discrepancies which do not go to the heart of the matter and shake the basic version of the prosecution witness”.
56.The principles laid down in the above decisions are squarely applicable to the facts of the present case as in the present case also the minor discrepancies as to when the police came to know about the offence, when WPC went to the hospital, when all the witnesses have witnessed the CCTV footages.
These minor discrepancy and the IO when for the first time visited the scene of offence, all these minor discrepancies does not effect the case of prosecution.
When the evidence adduced is sufficient for the Court to come to a conclusion that there is no exaggeration and improvements and when the evidence can be separated from truth from untruth. The accused is to be convicted.
57.So, having gone through the entire evidence of prosecution the intention of accused in causing injuries to the deceased clearly established that only with
Digitally signed by
RAJESWARIRAJESWARI
GATHADI
GATHADI
Date: 2025.04.07
17:22:55 +0000 31 an intention to murder the deceased such injuries have been caused to the deceased and the medical evidence clearly establishes that the death occurred due to the injuries caused by the deceased. The inquest report and postmortem examination report has also establishes the case and the circumstantial evidence clearly establishes the presence of A1 at the scene of offence by way of finger prints which were identically found which were lifted on the wooden alamara and
ExP3 which is the CCTV footage clearly shows the presence of A1 and A2 at the scene of offence and in furtherance of their common intention A1 caused injury and A2 was assisting A1 by smothering the deceased with the help of pillow and in the process they committing robbery, they have caused injury with an intention to cause death. The prosecution has establishes this case beyond reasonable doubt. Point answered accordingly.
POINT NO.4:-
58.The other charge under section 64 (1) of BNS. The perusal of
Ex.P3/video clearly establishes that after causing injury to the deceased and after robbing her and committing robbery and in that process also it is noticed in the
CC TV footage that A1 kisses the vagina of the deceased. C.C.T.v footages clearly shows while A1 and A2 removing her gold ornaments that itself amounts to rape and further show their intention, A1 inserting his penis into her vagina and that time he calls A2, A2 caught hold of the deceased while she was struggling to raise her hand which can be clearly seen from the video clipping. All the witnesses who have witnessed the video have also deposed about act of A1 and
A2, A2 caught hold of the deceased, A1 committing rape on her. So, the prosecution has establishes their common intention, the doctor evidence has been clearly established by Ex.P8 and Ex.P9 which are marked through PW19 who has categorically spoken about the chances of sexual assault cannot be ruled out. Though the learned legal aid defence counsel elicited that there may be present of foreign hair mixed with the cubic hair. Here it is to be noted that
RAJESWARIDigitally signed by
RAJESWARI GATHADI
GATHADIDate: 2025.04.07 17:23:02 +0000 32 samples are lifted on 01-08-2024, so merely non presence of the foreign hair does not in any way help to the accused case. ExP8 and Ex.P9 clearly establishes that deceased was subjected to sexual assault and more particularly when there is a clearly video clipping showing the act of A1 and A2. The prosecution has clearly establishes that A1 and A2 with a common intention caused injuries and committed rape on the deceased. The prosecution has establishes its case beyond reasonable doubt. Point answered accordingly.
POINT NO.5:-
59.The learned APP has contended that all the witnesses have clearly stated that A1 and A2 trespassed into the house of the deceased and committed robbery and taken away two gold chain, four bangles and ear studs from the possession of the deceased and the same property has been recovered from the possession of A1 and A2 as well as A3 and A3 failed to explain how he got possession of those articles when he failed to explain the possession of the property how he got possession of the property it is deemed that he has knowledge that it is the stolen property which he is in possession. So, the presumption arose that he knows that the property is stolen property. Therefore,
A3 is liable for conviction under section 309(6) of BNS.
60.On the other hand, the learned legal aid defence counsel has contended that the recovery of the property is not proved by the prosecution as the presence of PW11 and PW12 is doubtful who identified A3 arrest. The evidence of mediators is also not proved as he has not spoken about presence of appraiser and identification of parade of property is also not according to law. No test of identification parade has been conducted upon A3. Therefore, A3 is entitled for benefit of doubt.
61.Taking into these contentions of the learned APP and learned counsel for accused the evidence on record is to be viewed.
RAJESWARIDigitally signed by
RAJESWARI GATHADI
GATHADIDate: 2025.04.07 17:23:08 +0000 33
62.The prosecution has already establishes that MO1 to MO3 is the stolen property which A1 and A2 committed robbery from the house of the deceased.
The prosecution has also establishes that the same property was recovered property from the possession of A3 by way of Ex.P2 and by way of the evidence of PW1, who identified the property in the test of identification parade and the evidence of PW25 is the VRO, in whose presence A1 to A3 were arrested and he has spoken about confession of the accused and in pursuance of that confession recovery of the property. He deposed that the third person has disclosed his identity as Gurjagada Ramakrishna and confessed about A1 giving two bangles to him to sell the same and two bangles were seized from his possession under
Ex.P13. So, by way of the evidence of PW25 and Ex.P13 the seizure of the property has been proved.
63.PW13 is the person who weighed the gold articles, he also identified A3 at the scene of offence. PW11 and PW12 have also identified A1 to A3 as the persons who are arrested by the Police at near Fish market. The evidence of IO is also very clear with regard to apprehension of A1 to A3 in possession of gold articles and Ex.P5/test of identification parade conducted for the property also established that it is the property which was robbed by A1 and A2. So, this aspect clearly establishes that A3 was in possession of gold bangles and his confession is that A1 has given those articles to him to sell the same. Added to this in 313
Cr.P.C examination A3 made a statement that since he is involved in other theft cases, police have implicated him in this case. This statement of A3 itself draws an infarance that he is in habit of receiving the stolen property. Though basing on that statement he cannot be convicted but definitely suggesting that he is in habit of receiving stolen property. His defence is completely denied but he made no effort to explain how he got possession of the property. When the accused is in possession of property the presumption under 119 of BNS arose the court may presume existence of said fact.
RAJESWARIDigitally signed by
RAJESWARI GATHADI
GATHADIDate: 2025.04.07 17:23:14 +0000 34 Sec.119(A) of BNS:
Voluntarily causing hurt or grievous hurt to extort property, or to
constrain to an illegal to an act (1) Whoever voluntarily causes hurt, for the purpose of extorting from the sufferer, or from any person interested in the sufferer, any property or valuable security, or of constraining the sufferer or any person interested in such sufferer to do anything which is illegal or which may facilitate the commission of an offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine
64. So, once the prosecution has proved that A3 is in possession of property, the presumption under section 119(A) BNS of arose and the burden is shift on the to rebut the presumption and when accused failed to prove how he got possession of property and failed to account for his possession it is established that he has received the property knowing into the stolen property.
The prosecution has established its case against A3 beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, A3 is liable for conviction. Point answered accordingly.
65.In the result, A1 and A2 are found guilty for the offence under section 331(7), 103(1), 309(6), 64(1) r/w 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
Accordingly, they are convicted under section 258(2) of B.N.S.S. A3 is found guilty for the offence under section 317 (3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
Accordingly, he is convicted under section 258(2) of B.N.S.S.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced
by me in open Court, on this the 3rd day of April, 2025.
RAJESWARI
Digitally signed by RAJESWARI
GATHADI
GATHADI
Date: 2025.04.07 17:23:22 +0000
V Addl. District & Sessions Judge-cum- Special Court for trial of offences against women West Godavari, Eluru.
35 Dt.07-04-2025
A1 to A3 are produced from District Jail, Eluru.
Heard A1 to A3 on the quantum of sentence. A1 stated that he is having old age parents and he is sole bread winner of the family and he has to look after his family. A2 stated that he is having wife and children and his wife suffering with vision problem. He is sole bread winner of the family and he has to look after his family. A3 stated that he is having wife and children and he is sole bread winner of the family and he has to look after his children. Taking into the circumstances stated by all the accused there is no necessary to take no lenient view.
A1 and A2 are sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of LIFE for the offence under section 64(1) of r/w 3(5) of BNS and alsoto pay a fine of Rs.5000/- each (Rupees five thousand only) and in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of two years (2).
A1 and A2 are sentenced to undergo Imprisonment for a period of LIFE for the offence under section 103 (1) r/w 3(5) of BNS and alsoto pay a fine of
Rs.5000/- each (Rupees five thousand only) and in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of two years (2).
A1 and A2 are sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of TEN years (10) for the offence under section 309 (6) r/w 3(5) of BNS and alsoto pay a fine of Rs.2000/- each (Rupees two thousand only) and in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one year (1).
A1 and A2 are sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of TEN years (10) for the offence under section 331(7) r/w 3(5) of BNS and also to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- each (Rupees two thousand only) and in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one year (1). All the above sentences shall run concurrently.
RAJESWARIDigitally signed by
RAJESWARI GATHADI
GATHADIDate: 2025.04.07 17:23:28 +0000 36
A3 is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of FIVE years (5) for the offence under section 317 (3) of BNS and also to pay a fine of
Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand only) and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one year (1).
MO1-Broken two rows mutyalu of pagadalu gold chain, MO2-Four gold bangles and MO3-Broken pieces Gold ear studs shall be returned to committal
Court to return to PW1 after expiry of appeal time. MO4-White nighty with green design, MO5-Black colour mask, MO6-Blood stained cement kundi, MO9-Multi color designed shirt, MO10-Black color pant, MO11-White color shirt and MO12-
Dark blue colour pant shall be returned to committal Court to destroy the case property after expiry of appeal time. MO7-Vivo blue colour phone shall be returned to committal Court to return to A1 after expiry of appeal time. MO8-
Narzo grey colour phone shall be returned to committal Court to return to PW4 after expiry of appeal time. Un-marked property, if any, shall be returned to committal to destroy the case property after expiry of appeal time.
A1 and A2 are entitled for set off remand period i.e. from 03-08-2024 to 07- 04-2025 under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. A3 is entitled for set off remand period i.e.
from 03-08-2024 to 23-08-2024 and 11-11-2024 to 07-04-2025 and under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.
A1 to A3 are appraised of their right to prefer appeal to the Hon’ble High
Court with free legal aid if required.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced
by me in open Court, on this the 7th day of April, 2025.
RAJESWARIDigitally signed by RAJESWARI
GATHADI
GATHADIDate: 2025.04.07 17:23:36 +0000 V Addl. District & Sessions Judge-cum- Special Court for trial of offences against women West Godavari, Eluru.
37
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PROSECUTION:
PW1 G.N.V.Minakshi Devi
PW2 Batchu Prudhvi
PW3 Girijala Srinivas
PW4 Yarlagadda Kamala @ Mary
PW5 R.N.V.Praveen Babu
PW6 Gade Venkata Krishna Kumar
PW7 T.Murali Krishna
PW8 Sankuratri Uma Devi
PW9 Tangella Sai Kumar
PW10 M.Rajesh
PW11 Kavadi Venkateswarlu
PW12 Bharati Mariyya
PW13 Kalisetti Mohan
PW14 Kadali Nageswari
PW15 Nekuri Guna Sundari
PW16 Dr.T.Sreenivasa Rao
PW17 Dr.K.S.P.N.Varma
PW18 Dr.M.Hema Sundar
PW19 Dr.M.Deepthi
PW20 Kalisetti Atchyutaramyya
PW21 Nokki Lakshmi Devi
PW22 Katta Nagaraju
PW23 Girijala Raviteja
PW24 Dr.S.Krishnam Raju
PW25 Chettajallu Subbarao
PW26 K.Manga Devi, the then Circle Inspector of Police
PW27 M.Rajani Kumar, the then Circle Inspector of Police.
RAJESWARIDigitally signed by
RAJESWARI GATHADI
GATHADIDate: 2025.04.07 17:23:47 +0000 38 For Defence :: Nil
EXHIBITS MARKED
For Prosecution::
Ex.P1 Complaint
Ex.P2Section 63 of BSA certificate
Ex.P3 Sandisk Pendrive black colour
Ex.P4 Section 63 (4)(c) of BSA certificate
Ex.P5 Report along with chance print lifted sheet compared sheet total five pages.
Ex.P6 Potency certificate
Ex.P7Wound certificate
Ex.P8Report of collection of specimens
Ex.P9Final opinion along with RFSL report
Ex.P10Scene observation report
Ex.P11Inquest report
Ex.P12Postmortem examination certificate
Ex.P13Part of mediators report
Ex.P14Mediator’s report
Ex.P15Test of identification parade report
Ex.P16 FIR
Ex.P17 Rough sketch
Ex.P18 Rough sketch inside room
Ex.P19 Certificate issued by PW26
Ex.P20 Six photographs along with pendrive
Ex.P21 Letter of advice
Ex.P22 Death intimation
RAJESWARIDigitally signed by
RAJESWARI GATHADI
GATHADIDate: 2025.04.07 17:23:54 +0000 39 Ex.P23 Altered FIR
Ex.P24Three photographs
Ex.P25Section 63(4)(c) of BSA certificate
Ex.P26Three photographs
Ex.P27Section 63(4)(C) B.S.A certificate issued by PW25.
For Defence::
Ex.D1Contradiction in 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW4
Ex.D2Contradiction in 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW12
Ex.D3Contradiction in 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW13
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED
MO1-Broken two rows mutyalu of pagadalu gold chain
MO2-Four gold bangles
MO3-Gold ear studs
MO4-White nighty with green design
MO5- Black colour mask
MO6-Blood stained cement kundi
MO7-Vivo blue colour phone
MO8-Narzo grey colour phone
MO9-Multi color designed shirt
MO10-Black color pant
MO11-White color shirt
MO12-Dark blue colour pant
RAJESWARIDigitally signed by
RAJESWARI GATHADI
GATHADIDate: 2025.04.07 17:24:00 +0000 V AD & SJ, Eluru 40 Copies to:
1. The Registrar (Judl.) High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Nelapdu, Guntur District (through C.D).
2. The District Collector, W.G., Eluru.
3. The Director of prosecution, Vijayawada.
4. The Superintendent of Police, W.G., Eluru.
5. Additional Public Prosecutor, V Addl.District and Sessions Court – cum-Special Court for trial of offences against women, W.G., Eluru
6. The District Legal Services Authority, West Godavari, Eluru.
7. Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Palakol.
8. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Rajamahendravaram.
RAJESWARIDigitally signed by
RAJESWARI GATHADI
GATHADIDate: 2025.04.07 17:24:05 +0000 41 //T.C.F.B.O.//
Chief Administrative Officer,
V Additional District & Sessions Court,
West Godavari, Eluru 42