IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL.ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE
AT MAHABUBNAGAR
Thursday, the 8th day of November, 2018
Present:- Smt. J.Kavitha,
Asst.Sessions Judge, Shadnagar
FAC: I-Addl. Asst.Sessions Judge,
(FTC):Mahabubnagar .
S.C. No. 517 of 2013
Preliminarily registered case No. 54 of 2013 committed by the
Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Kalwakurthy in Cr.No.57 of 2013 of
P.S. Madgul for the offences U/Secs. 147, 148, 448, 384, 506 R/w
Sec.511, 149 of I.P.C and Sec.25(1) (a) Arms Act.
Prosecution. Sri. K.Prabhu, Addl.Public Prosecutor.
Accused1. Kondreddi Yerukali Saidulu S/o Ramulu, age: 27 years, Caste:Yerukali, occu: Agril, R/o Bairapur village of Veldanda mandal.
2. Gudlanaram Santhosh @ Chakali Santhosh @ Sathish S/o Sailu, age: 28 years, caste: Rajaka , occu:Welder R/o Bairapur village of Veldanda mandal,
3. Gorantla Jangaiah @ Dabbi @ Mallesh S/o G. Ramulu, age: 27 years, Caste: Madiga, occu:Agril, R/o Ajilapur village of Veldanda mandal.
4. Guniganti Jangaiah goud @ Jagan @ Janglu S/o Naraiah, age: 24 years, Caste: Goud, occu: Agril, R/o Ajilapur village of Veldanda mandal.
5. Gunaganti Shanker goud @ Shekar S/o Yadaiah goud, age: 25 years, Occu: Lorry driver,
6. Naroju Shankara Chary S/o Ramana, age: 52 years, Caste:Kammari, occu: Kammari work R/o Manajipet village of Khillaghanpur Mandal.
….Accused 2 to 7.
Sri K.Mohan Advocate for A2, A4 to A7 Sri B. Kurmaiah, Advocate for A3.
Offence under section 148, 451, 384 r/w 511, 506 IPC and Sec. 25 (1-A) of the Arms Act.
Plea of the accusedPleaded not guilty
Finding of courtFound guilty.
Page 2
Sentence or order In the result, A2 to A6 are found guilty of the offences punishable U/Secs. 148, 451, 384, 506 of IPC. A2, A3 & A-7 are found guilty of the offence punishable U/Sec.25 (1) (A) of Arms Act and they are accordingly convicted U/Sec. 235(2) Cr.P.C.
The accused No.2 to 6 are sentenced to undergo R.I for 3 (three) Years each for the offence punishable U/Sec. 148 IPC and they are further sentenced to undergo R.I for 2 (two) years each and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer S.I for one month each for the offence punishable U/Sec. 451 IPC and they are further sentenced to undergo R.I for 3 (three) years each for the offence U/s 384 IPC and they are further sentenced to undergo R.I for 2 (two) years each for the offence punishable U/Sec. 506 IPC. All the sentences passed against A2 to A6 shall run concurrently. A-2, A3 & A7 are sentenced to undergo R.I for 5 (five) years each and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each, in default to suffer S.I for one month each for the offence punishable U/Sec. 25(1) (A) of Arms Act. The remand period of A-2 from 8-8-2012 to 1-10-2012 and remand period of A3 from 8-8-2012 to 1-10-2012 and from 28-12-2017 to 12-1-2018 and from 7-4-2017 to 15-4-2017 and remand period of A-4 from 8-8-2012 to 26-9-2012 and remand period of A-5 from 8-8-2012 to 26-9-2012 and remand period of A-6 from 8-8-2012 to 26-9- 2012 and remand period of A-7 from 8-8-2012 to 29-8-2012 shall be set off U/Sec. 428 Cr.P.C. Since charge sheet reveals that A-1 is absconding and separate charge sheet will be filed after his apprehension, order pertaining to the property at this stage is not passed.
-o0o-
This case came up for final hearing before me on 25-10-2018 and upon perusing the oral and documentary evidence on record, upon hearing the arguments, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:-
JUDGMENT
The Circle Inspector of police, Amangal filed charge sheet against the accused Nos.2 to 7 in Cr. No.57 of 2013 of PS
Madgul for the offences punishable U/Secs. 147, 148, 448, 384, 506 r/w 511, 149 IPC and Sec. 25 (1-A) of the Arms Act.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 7-7-2012 at 2130 hours, A1 to A6 entered into the V.L. Poultry farms, Arkepally
Page 3 village by removing fencing wire and A1 and A2 armed with one weapon and A3 armed with Air gun and A5 carried one toy pistol, while, L.W.2 D.Chandra Shekar @ Shekar and L.W.3 Jerpula Srinu
Naik having dinner, A1 and A3 brought L.W.2 Chandra Shekar from outside and asked him who is the owner of the farm, he told them the owner is residing at Hyderabad and Supervisor i.e.LW1- V.
Nagaraju staying herein, then LW2 Shekar knocked the door of LW-1
Nagaraju and said that some one came for him, then LW1 came out side and questioned A1 to A6 who are they, then A1 and A3 dragged him outside and took him into low light area and they said that they belong to Sambhasivudu Dalam Maoists and demanded
Rs.5-00 lakhs and threatened LW1 on the point of arms. During their stay of 25 minutes, they searched the entire office for cash and while leaving the place, they asked the particulars of owner of poultry farm and L.W1 gave his own phone number to them by telling that the owner name is Gurram Malla Reddy. On 10-7-2012,
A-4 telephoned and threatened him and told him that he would tell him the time and place for amount, then LW.1 posed himself as owner and made conversation with A4.
Basing on the report of complainant (PW1), the S.I of police
Madgul registered a case in Cr.No.57/2012 U/Secs. 147, 148, 448, 384, 506 r/w 511, 149 IPC and Sec. 25 (1-A) of the Arms Act. The C.I of police,
Amangal took up investigation, arrested the accused and on interrogation they admitted their guilt pertaining to this case and other crimes and recovered the material objects from them and sent them to judicial custody and after completion of investigation, filed the charge sheet against A2 to A7 by showing A1 as absconding.
Page 4
3. The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kalwakurthy took the cognizance against the accused for the offence U/Secs. 147, 148, 448, 384, 506 r/w 511, 149 IPC and Sec. 25 (1-A) of the Arms Act and after following the Committal procedure, committed the case to the
Court of Sessions, Mahabubnagar along with case records. The Court of Sessions, Mahabubnagar taken the cognizance for the said offences and made over the case to this court for disposal according to law.
4. Upon hearing both sides and on perusing the material on record, this court framed the charge 148, 451, 384 r/w 511, 506 IPC and Sec.
25 (1-A) of the Arms Act against the accused 2 to 7, read over and explained to them and they pleaded not guilty of the said charge and claimed to be tried.
5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 9 and got marked Exs P1 to P19 and M.Os.1 to 5 marked.
6. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused Nos. 2 to 7 were examined U/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C and they denied the incriminating evidence adduced against them and they reported no defence evidence.
7. Heard arguments of the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and counsel for the accused.
8. Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable 148, 451, 384 r/w 511, 506 IPC and Sec. 25 (1-A) of the Arms Act beyond all reasonable doubt?
Page 5
9. POINT:-
Thecase of the prosecution is that on 7-7-2012 at about 9-30 hours, while PW-1 along with his wife and child was present in the premises located in poultry farm area extending in 35 acres situated at Arkepally village, the accused A2 to A6 along with A1 ( who is shown absconding ) formed into an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object armed with deadly weapons and committed trespass and thereby used criminal force on PW-1 and demanded an amount of Rs.5-00 lakhs towards donation of their party fund stating that they belonged to Sambasivudu Dalam Maoists. It is further case of the prosecution is that when the accused searched the house of PW-1 for the demanded amount and when they failed to find the same, they asked the phone numbers of the owner of PW-1 i.e.
P.W.3 herein and PW-1 instead of giving his owner number, he gave his two mobile numbers to the accused and the accused threatened him with dire consequences to kill if he reported the matter to the police.
The prosecution further alleges that on 10-7-2012, the accused called on mobile of PW-1 thinking it is the phone of PW-3 and demanded him to pay the amount and PW-1 expressed his inability to meet their demand and thereafter he reported the matter to PW-3 and on his instructions he lodged complaint.
10. The prosecution examined PWs 1 to 9 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-19 and MOs. 1 to 5 to establish its case. The offences alleged against the accused are U/Secs. 148, 451, 384, 506 IPC and Sec.
25(1)(A) Arms Act.
11. To constitute the offences U/Secs.148 and 451 IPC, the ingredients have to be proved by the prosecution are that the accused formed into
Page 6 an unlawful assembly and committed rioting armed with deadly weapons.
12. PW-1 in this case deposed in his evidence that on 7-7-2012 at about 9-30 pm, while he was present along with his family at his house situated at Arkepally village of Madgula mandal PWs 2 and 3 were present adjacent to his house and at about 9-30 pm, both PWs 2 and 3 knocked his house door calling him and stating that some people have come to meet him and when he opened the door and came out of the house, he found six persons present outside of his house and one among them caught hold of his shirt and dragged him out of the house and took him aside and they exposed themselves as
Sambasivudu Dalam people and demanded Rs. 5-00 lakhs from poultry farm and when he informed them that his owner was not present, they searched in the cash counter and in the office of the poultry farm, but they did not find anything and therefore, they demanded to give the phone number of his owner, but he gave his two mobile phone numbers to them and also on their demand, he gave the Car number of his owner/PW3.
It has been further deposed by PW-1 that three days after the incident he received a phone call on his phone number 9959355005 and they enquired about the amount of Rs.5-00 lakhs which was demanded by them and that he spoke to them as if he is owner and informed them that he cannot meet their demand, but they informed him to handover the amount to the persons they send from Kalwakurthy and that he recorded the said conversation and went to Hyderabad since his wife fell sick and after one week, he informed the matter to
PW-3 and on his instructions he lodged complaint under Ex.P-1. Witness identified A2 to A6 in the open court as the persons who came to his
Page 7 house and demanded the amount. He also deposed that he identified the accused in the Test Identification proceedings.
13. PW3 who is the owner of the said poultry farm deposed on similar lines as deposed by PW-1 stating that on 7-7-2012 PW-1 informed him about the incident and also on 17-7-2012 when the accused further demanded Rs.5-00 lakhs. PW3 added to his evidence stating that the accused threatened him to kill if he does not compromise the matter with them.
14. The prosecution examined PWs 2 and 6 who are eye witnesses to the incident. PW-2 who worked as a driver deposed that on 7-7-2012 while he was present in the poultry farm of PW-1 at about 9-30 pm, all the six people came to poultry farm and talked to PW-1. He did not identify the accused as the persons who came to poultry farm on the date of the incident. But his evidence to the extent that the accused by forming into an unlawful assembly committed house trespass is corroborating with the prosecution case is supporting the prosecution case. Another eye witness to the incident i.e. PW6 turned hostile stating that he did not know the facts of the case and at the time of alleged incident while he was having his dinner there was power cut and he did not know what happened. He denied to have examined by the police U/s 161 Cr.P.C and his statement is marked as Ex.P-13. As per the evidence of PW-1, the accused formed into an unlawful assembly with an intention to commit offence and thereby committed trespass armed with deadly weapons and hence used force and violence on PW-1. The evidence of PW-1 supported by the evidence of PWs 2 and 3 constitute the offences U/Secs.148 and 451 IPC.
Page 8
15. As seen from the evidence PW-7 Hon’ble the then Jr. Civil
Judge, Kalwakurthy, conducted Test Identification parade in which PWs
1, 2 and 6 identified the accused in the proceedings as the persons who came to the poultry farm on the date of the incident. The evidence of
PW-7 is that by following due procedure of law and by taking all the precautions, she conducted Test Identification parade in which PWs 1, 2 & 6 identified the accused correctly.
16. The contention of the counsel for the accused is that PW-1 never worked in the poultry farm of PW3 and to establish the same, neither PW-1 nor prosecution filed any documentary evidence. It is further contended that there are two gates to the poultry farm extending in 35 acres and there is security on the alleged date of the incident and therefore, there is no possibility for the accused to enter into the premises without passing through the security. During the cross- examination of PW-3, it is further clear that there is a compound wall to the poultry farm extending in 35 acres with fencing and there are two gates. It is not his version that there is a compound wall to entire land.
But as seen from the evidence of PW-3 who is owner of the poultry farm, the extent of the area nearly 35 acres and there is every possibility for the accused to commit trespass.
17. The prosecution after establishing an offence of rioting armed with deadly weapons by the accused, to further establish that the accused attempted to commit extortion and threatened PW-1 to kill, relied on the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 and 6. PW-1 clearly deposed that the accused came to poultry farm on 7-7-2012 at 9-30 pm and one of them caught hold of his shirt collar and dragged him out of his house and exposed themselves as Sambasivudu Dalam and demanded Rs.
5-00 lakhs. He further says that the person who pulled him by catch
Page 9 holding his shirt is armed with gun hanging to his shoulder and all the persons aged between 25 and 30 years. It is further deposed by PW-1 that when the accused could not find any amount in the cash counter of the office, they demanded to give phone number of his owner and that he gave his mobile numbers 9885056781 and 9959355005, they also demanded the car number of his owner and accordingly he gave the car number of his owner. It is further evidence of PW-1 that three days after the incident on 10-7-2012 in the evening hours he received a phone call to his cell phone No.9959355005 and they enquired about demanded amount of Rs.5-00 lakhs and that he talked to them as if he is owner and informed them that he cannot meet their demand, but the accused did not heed his request and again demanded to pay Rs.5-00 lakhs and also informed that they would send two persons from Kalwakurthy to receive the amount and further guided him to where to pay the amount.
18. The evidence of other eye witnesses i.e. PWs 2 and 6 is not helping the version of PW-1 since they turned hostile to that extent. It is also not the evidence of PW-1 that at the time of the demand and attempt of extortion, PWs 2 and 6 were present with him. Further, PWs 2 and 6 identified all the accused in the T.I. Parade under Ex.P-16.
Therefore, the evidence of PW-1 who is only witness at the time of attempt to commit extortion is sufficient to prove the ingredients of Sec.
384 and 506 IPC. Further, the evidence of PW.4 is supporting the case of the prosecution that PW-8 is visited the scene and conducting panchanama.
19. Now to prove the offence U/s 25 (1) (A) of Arms Act, PW1 deposed that among six persons who came to his place on the date of the incident, one person who dragged him out of the house is having a gun hanging to his shoulder and also the other person is
Page 10 also having gun to his shoulder. PW8 who is the investigating officer in this case deposed that on 24-7-2012 at about 09.00 hours on credible information, he arrested A2 to A6 along with some others and thereafter he secured the presence of Kavali Laxmaiah and
M.Manaiah and recorded the confessional statement of A2 and recovered one bore mar weapon and Air gun and Philips T.V.
pertaining to the crime of other police station. He further deposed that he also recorded the confessional statement of A-3 in the presence of the same panch witnesses and seized one LG phone pertaining to the crime of other police station and thereafter recorded the confessional statement of A4 and seized Micromax phone and thereafter recorded the confessional statement of A-5 and seized one toy gun which was mentioned as made in China No.202, dark horse peashooter and after that, he recorded the confessional statements of other accused pertaining to other crimes of other police stations and later returned to the police station.
It has been further deposed by PW-8 that as per the confessional statement of A-2, he got manufactured the weapons with the help of Shankarachary (A7) resident of Khilaghanpur village and A-2 got repaired one weapon and purchased two new weapons and basing on his confession, A-7 was summoned to the police station and he recorded the confessional statement of A-7 in the presence of the same panchas at the police station and that A- 2 paid Rs.8,000/- to A7 for getting weapons repaired. PW-8 further says that A-7 confessed that Khillaghanpur police arrested him under Arms Act pertaining to their crime and seized the property which was used by A-7 in manufacturing the weapons and therefore, he could not recover the said property used by A7 in
Page 11 manufacturing the weapons. PW8 further deposed that on 18.8.2012, he sent weapon which was seized from A2 to the F.S.L and thereafter he received FSL report under Ex.P-18. The M.Os 1 to 5 are the objects seized by PW8. Exs.P-4 to P-12 are the confession and recovery panchanamas of A-2 to A7. On perusal of Ex.P-17, it clearly shows that the item No.1 i.e. SBML gun with ramrod is a company made SBML gun and it was fired previously, but the exact date when it was last fired cannot be ascertained and further it is in working order and it comes under the purview of Arms Act.
20. The prosecution examined the panch witness to the confession of A2 to A7 as P.W.5 and given up the evidence of another panch witness basing on the evidence of PW-5. PW-5 deposed that at the request of police on 24-7-2012 at 9 am, he went to Bairapur gutta wherein the accused confessed before him that they have threatened PW-1 to extract money at V.L.Poultry
Farm and also threatened the staff in the poultry and demanded
Rs.5-00 lakhs and their names were mentioned in the panchanama.
PW-5 also named the persons who confessed before him as Saidulu,
Mallesh, Santhose, Jangaiah and Ranga Chary. It is further deposed by PW5 that in his presence one toy pistol, two cell phones, one barrel gun and one plastic pistol are recovered under panchanama and M.Os. 1 to 5 are the same. He further said that after completion of recording confessional statements of A2 to A7, he signed on them and when the documents are confronted to him, he identified his signatures on the confessional statements of A2 to A7 and recovery panchanamas of A2 to A5. During the cross-examination, he clearly stated that no other person was present at the time of recording confession of accused and further stated that in his
Page 12 presence the persons disclosed their names and father names and when asked the name of father of A-1, he said that the father of A-1 is Donki Ramulu.
The contention of the defence is that PW-1 who is working as V.R.O is a stock witness to the police and as admitted by him he gave evidence as a mediator in 10 to 15 cases and therefore, his evidence cannot be relied upon. As seen from the evidence of PW5, he clearly stated that the accused voluntarily confessed in his presence and no other person was present at the time of confession. The defence did not produce either oral or documentary evidence to show that PW5 is having any enmity against the accused so as to depose evidence against them. Therefore, the evidence of PW-1 coupled with the evidence of PW-8 established that the accused voluntarily confessed about the commission of the offence.
21. The evidence of PWs.1 to 3 and 6 show that the accused formed into an unlawful assembly with an intention to commit an offence and in furtherance of their common intention, they criminally trespassed into the poultry farm armed with deadly weapons and committed rioting by dragging PW1 out of the house holding his shirt collar and thereby committed extortion by putting him in fear and demanding Rs.5-00 lakhs.
22. The counsel for the accused on one hand argued that the accused never trespassed into the poultry farm and on the other hand, argued that they went to the poultry farm for collection of
Chandas for Vinayaka Chavithi festival. It is the further contention that though the alleged incident occurred on 7-7-2012 at 9-30 pm,
Page 13 neither PW-1 nor PW-3 informed the police about the incident till 17-7-2012 which shows that it is an afterthought action. The delay in lodging the complaint is also admitted by PW-8 that there is a delay of 10 days in reporting the matter.
23. For this, the evidence of PWs 1 and 3 is sufficient as the evidence of PW1 clearly shows that on 7-7-2012 the incident occurred and then on 10-7-2012 he received phone call from the accused by demanding Rs.5-00 lakhs, but he went to Hyderabad as his wife fell sick and therefore he could not report the matter to PW-
3. PW-3 also said that on 7-7-2012, PW1 informed him about the incident and also on 17.7.2012 for the second time when the accused demanded PW1 for Rs.5-00 lakhs. Therefore, it cannot be called as delay in reporting the matter. The evidence of PW4 ascertains crime scene conducted under crime details form/Ex.P-3.
The other panch witness is not examined by the prosecution basing on the evidence of PW-4. Further the evidence of PW7 who conducted Test Identification proceedings is corroborating the evidence of prosecution. Even during cross-examination, the evidence of PW7 remains consistent. PWs 8 and 9 who are the investigating officers of this case conducted proper investigation and also by sending arms to the F.S.L, it is established that M.O.5 comes under the purview of the Arms Act.
24. The learned counsel for the accused relied upon the following decisions reported in;
1) 2017 (1) ALT (Crl.) 101 (SC) between Jose @ Pappachan Vs. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Koyilandy and another;
Page 14
2) 2017 AIAR (Criminal ) Supreme Court of India between Nathiya Vs. State Rep by Inspector of police, Bagayam Police station, Vellore;
3) 2008 (2) Acquittal 417 (Ori.) Orissa High Court
between Pratap @ Alok Kumar Barik Vs. State.
I have gone through the reported decisions with all humility and in first two cited decisions, it held that the prosecution must elevate its case from the realm of “may be true” to the plane of “ must be true” as is indispensably required in law for conviction on a criminal charge and when there are two views are possible on the evidence available, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the one favourable to the accused ought to be adopted.
25. In the case on hand, all the prosecution witnesses established the case of the prosecution wherein PW-1 clearly identified A2 to A6 and PW3 stated that the accused threatened him for compromise. Further, the evidence of PWs.5 and 7 coupled with the evidence of PW8 also show that “it must be true” that the accused are the persons who committed the offence. In third cited decision, it is held that the statement made by the accused before the police admitting his guilt which was entered in the Station Diary giving rise to FIR will not be admissible in evidence. Since the statements of all the accused in this case are given before PW5 and
L.W.8 Manaiah but not before PW-8 alone. Therefore, this reported decision is not applicable to the case on hand.
26. Considering the above discussion and the facts and circumstances of the case, it is held that the prosecution established its case by proving the offences U/Secs. 148, 451, 384,
Page 15 506 of IPC against A2 to A6 and Sec.25 (1) (A) of Arms Act against
A2, A3 & A7. Therefore, the accused deserve for conviction.
27. In the result, A2 to A6 are found guilty of the offences punishable U/Secs. 148, 451, 384, 506 of IPC. A2, A3 & A-7 are found guilty of the offence punishable U/Sec.25 (1) (A) of Arms Act and they are accordingly convicted U/Sec. 235(2) Cr.P.C.
Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 8th day of November, 2018.
I Addl. Asst.Sessions Judge, (FTC) Mahabubnagar.
28. When the accused No.2 to A7 are questioned with regard to the quantum of sentence,
They all stated that they are having small children and old age parents and they are the bread-winners of their families and they prayed the court to take lenient view.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the allegations, this is not a fit case to invoke the benevolent provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 as the accused have trespassed into the poultry farm armed with deadly weapons, threatened PW-1 with dire consequences and demanded money of Rs.
5-00 lakhs from PW-1 by putting him in fear of death.
29. Considering the said fact that, it is not a fit case to take any lenient view, hence, The accused No.2 to 6 are sentenced to undergo R.I for 3 (three) Years each for the offence punishable U/Sec. 148 IPC and they are further sentenced to undergo R.I for 2 (two) years each and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each, in default to suffer S.I for one month each for the offence punishable U/Sec. 451 IPC and they are further sentenced to
Page 16 undergo R.I for 3 (three) years each for the offence U/s 384 IPC and they are further sentenced to undergo R.I for 2 (two) years each for the offence punishable U/Sec. 506 IPC. All the sentences passed against A2 to A6 shall run concurrently.
Further, A-2, A3 & A7 are sentenced to undergo R.I for 5 (five) years each and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each, in default to suffer S.I for one month each for the offence punishable U/Sec. 25(1) (A) of Arms
Act.
The remand period of A-2 from 8-8-2012 to 1-10-2012 and remand period of A3 from 8-8-2012 to 1-10-2012 and from 28-12-2017 to 12-1-2018 and from 7-4-2017 to 15-4-2017 and remand period of A-4 from 8-8-2012 to 26-9-2012 and remand period of A-5 from 8-8-2012 to 26-9-2012 and remand period of A-6 from 8-8-2012 to 26-9-2012 and remand period of A-7 from 8-8-2012 to 29-8-2012 shall be set off U/Sec.
428 Cr.P.C. Since charge sheet reveals that A-1 is absconding and separate charge sheet will be filed after his apprehension, order pertaining to the property at this stage is not passed.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 8th day of November,
2018.
I Addl. Asst.Sessions Judge, (FTC) Mahabubnagar
Appendix of Evidence
Witnesses examined
Prosecution:-
PW1V.Nagaraju
PW2 J.Srinu
PW3 G.Malla Reddy
PW4 M.Yadaiah
PW5 K.Laxmaiah
PW6 D.Chandra Sekhar
PW7 Smt. B.Aparna Devi PW8 K.Satynarayana Reddy, S.I of Police, I.O.
Page 17
PW9 Harish Kaushik, C.I of police, I.O.
Defence: -NIL-
Exhibits marked
Prosecution:-
Ex.P-1 Complaint lodged by PW-1
Ex.P-2Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-1
Ex.P-3 Panchanama Report dt. 18-7-2012.
Ex.P-4Confessional panchanama of A-2
Ex.P-5Confession cum recovery panchanama of A3
Ex.P-6Confession cum recovery panchanama of A4
Ex.P-7Confession panchanama of A-5
Ex.P-8Confession panchanama of A-6
Ex.P-9Confession panchanama of A-7
Ex.P10Confession panchanama of A-2
Ex.P11 Recovery panchanama of A5
Ex.P12Recovery panchanama of A-2
Ex.P13Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-6
Ex.P14Requisition dt.2-8-2012
Ex.P15 Letter addressed to the District Jail, Mahabubnagar
Ex.P16 Test Identification parade proceedings dt. 7-8-2012
Ex.P17 First Information Report
Ex.P18 F.S.L. Report.
Ex.P19 Sanction proceeding of the District Collector,Mahabubnagar
Defence:
-NIL-
Material Objects marked
M.O.1 - Toy Pistol. MO.2 - Cell phone LG Black colour. MO.3 - Cell phone Micromax-290 MO.4 - Air gun 23” GNW Model MO.5 - Barrel gun (Bore mar ) 36.
I Addl. Asst.Sessions Judge, (FTC) Mahabubnagar