Judgment in SC No. 159 of 2020 Page No. 1 of total 30 pages
IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,
RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B. NAGAR,
Present : Dr. J. Kavitha.
IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE
RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT LB NAGAR
Dated this 15 th day of April, 2025
SC No. 159 of 2020
1.Name of the complainant:The State represented by SHO P.S. Vanasthalipuram
2.Name of the Accused:1. Sabavath Vinod S/o. Balya, aged 23 Years, Occ: Car Driver, R/o. H.No. 5-27/1, Enekindi Thanda, H/o. Nandivanaparthi village, Yacharam Mandal, RR District.
2. Kethavath Padma, W/o. Late Keshya Naik, Aged 32 years, Occ: Household, R/o. Suthya Thanda, H/o. Borrayapalem Village, Tripuraram Mandal, Nalgonda District.
3.Offence under sections: U/s. 302, 201, 109 r/w 34 IPC.
4.Cr. No. and Name of P.S: 760 of 2018 of PS Vanasthalipuram.
5.P.R.C. No.: 28 of 2019
6.Plea of the accused: Pleaded not guilty
7.Finding of the Court: Accused found not guilty.
8.Sentence of Order:In result, the Accused Nos. 1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence under Section 302 IPC and are acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. Further, the Accused No.1 is found not guilty for the offence under Section 201 IPC and is acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C for the said offence. Their bail bonds shall be in force for six months in view of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. MO.1 shall be destroyed and Mos.2 to 4 shall be confiscated to State after appeal time is over.
9.Prosecution conducted by: Sri. T. Venkateshwara Prasad
Additional Public Prosecutors for the State.
10.Defence conducted by: M/s. E. Srinivas Reddy (For accused No.1) M/s. Shaik Shareef (For accused No.2)
Judgment in SC No. 159 of 2020 Page No. 2 of total 30 pages
11.Case committed by: XXIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, R.R. District, at Hayathnagar.
This Sessions Case coming on before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri. T. Venkateshwara Prasad, Additional Public Prosecutor for the Complainant/State, of M/s. E. Srinivas Reddy, Counsel for Accused No.1 and of M/s. Shaik Shareef, Counsel for Accused No.2 and the matter having been heard and stood over for consideration till today, this court delivered the following:-
J U D G M E N T
The State represented through the Inspector of Police, PS Vanasthalipuram filed the charge sheet against the Accused in Crime No.760 of 2018 of Police Station,
Vanasthalipuram for the offence punishable Under Sections 302, 201 and 109 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’).
2(i). The brief case of the prosecution is that on 02-09-2018 at about 10:00 hours, a complaint was received from PW1 stating that they are three male and two female children to their parents and that all of them are married and residing separately and that his elder brother by name Kethavath Keshya Naik (hereinafter referred to as ‘Deceased’) was working in Postal department and was residing at Bhavani Nagar Colony, Kammaguda,
Vanasthalipuram along with his family and that he got married to the accused No.2 about 20 years ago, but remained issueless, as such, he performed second marriage with PW3 leading to the accused No.2 lodging complaint before PS Tripuraram and that the said case was pending.
2(ii). It is further stated by PW1 in the complaint that while the matter stood thus, on 29- 08-2018, he, his wife Kamala Bai, the deceased and PW3 attended Nidamanur Court for hearing of the aforementioned case where, the accused No.2 threatened him stating that she made the deceased meet with an accident once, but he escaped and that she would kill him and that subsequently, on 02-09-2018 at 04:30 hours, on receiving telephonic information from PW2 that the deceased met with an accident while going in his Mahindra
Judgment in SC No. 159 of 2020 Page No. 3 of total 30 pages
Xylo vehicle bearing No. TS 07 UE 2221 which hit an electric pole near Injapur Kaman and died on spot, but the driver i.e. the accused No.1 did not sustain any injuries, he came to
Hyderabad from Guntur and went to the accident spot and observed that there were no major damages to the vehicle and that it was impossible for any inmate of car in such condition to die and that he also observed the deadbody of his deceased brother at OGH mortuary and found no injuries , but found a contusion mark on his neck, as such, he suspected that the accused No.1 might have committed murder of the deceased on being abetted by the accused No.2.
2(iii). Basing on the above said complaint, PW15 registered a case vide Crime No.760 of 2018 under Section 302 IPC and took up investigation during the course of which, he examined and recorded the statement of PW1 and visited the scene of offence situated at
Electric Pole near Injapur Kaman, Hayathnagar Mandal, Vanasthalipuram, RR District and secured the presence of two mediators i.e. PW7 and LW9/Amgoth Dasharath and conducted the scene of offence panchanama besides drawn rough sketch map of the scene and brought all the observations on record and also seized the Mahindra Xylo Car bearing No. TS 07 UE 2221 whose left side was found hit to the electric pole under the cover of scene of offence-cum-seizure panchanama in the presence of same mediators by duly affixing their signed chits.
2(iv). During the course of further investigation, PW15 visited OGH mortuary and held inquest over the dead body of the Deceased in the presence of two other mediators i.e.
PW8 and LW12/Bhurri Srinivasulu and also took photographs of the same and found a blunt injury over the neck of the deceased. Thereafter, the deadbody was subjected to
Postmortem Examination by PW13 at the time of which, the clothes of the deceased i.e.
Light red colour Half baniyan, Chocolate colour pant and ash colour underwear were
Judgment in SC No. 159 of 2020 Page No. 4 of total 30 pages seized and after the autopsy, the dead body of the Deceased was handed over to relatives for final rites.
2(v). During the course of further investigation, PW15 handed over the CD file to PW16 who, having found the case record on correct lines, took up further investigation during which, the detailed statements of LW5/Dasari Jai Krishna was recorded. Later, on 03-09- 2018 at 11:00 hours, on receipt of credible information about the presence of accused
Nos. 1 and 2, PW16 and his staff i.e. LW19/P. Shobha, LW20/B. Mary Kumari and
LW218/S. Shiva Krishna rushed to Injapur Kaman and apprehended them and when they expressed a mood to confess the offence, a requisition letter was sent to Tahsildar who inturn deputed PW12 in whose presence and in the presence of another mediator i.e.
PW9, their separate confessional statements were recorded and the accused No.1 showed the electric pole to which he hit the vehicle after murdering the deceased after which, they proceeded to Gurramguda X road where, the accused No.1 showed the place where he stopped the car and murdered the deceased. Thereafter, the accused No.1 also showed Bhavani Bar and Restaurant where he and the deceased consumed liquor and after seizure of materials, PW16 and his staff returned to the police station along with the accused Nos.1 and 2 whose arrest was then affected and they were produced before the concerned Court for Judicial custody and the section of law 201, 109 r/w Section 34 IPC was also added to the existing Section 302 IPC.
2(vi). During course of further investigation, PW16 proceeded to Bhavani Bar and
Restaurant and recorded the statements of Pws 5 and 6, verified the CCTV footages and collected the same afterwhich, on requisition being filed and on police custody being granted for 4 days from 10:30 AM on 07-09-2018 to 05:00 PM on 10-09-2018, the accused were taken into custody on 07-09-2018 at 1400 hours and were questioned about the offence and on 08-09-2018, on the accused No.2 expressing mood to give confession,
Judgment in SC No. 159 of 2020 Page No. 5 of total 30 pages presence of PW11 and LW15/Chembeti Chandrika was secured and her detailed confessional statement was recorded during which, she further confessed that she would show the police the hotel where she gave amount of Rs.15000/- to the accused No.1 and also her cellphone that was at her house at Miryalaguda and accused No.1 also confessed the same orally and in pursuance of the said confession, on being led by the accused No.1 and 2, PW16 proceeded to Aruna Vilas Hotel, Opposite to Miryalaguda Bus Depot along with the said panchas and LW20/B. Mary Kumari where, the CCTV footage was verified of the date on which the accused No.1 and 2 met there i.e. 27-08-2018 and the relevant portion was collected in pendrive and the statement of PW10 was recorded afterwhich, the accused No.2 led them to her residence at H.No. 19-493, Muthireddykunta Colony, Opp:
Reddy colony, Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District where, one Micromax broken cell phone bearing IMEI Nos. 911359551094913 and 911359551600156 with Idea Sim bearing No.
8466841009 was seized under cover of seizure panchanama in the presence of said mediators by affixing their duly signed chits after which, the Accused Nos.1 and 2 were reproduced before the concerned court and were remanded to judicial custody.
2(vii). During the course of further investigation, Test Identification Parade of accused No.1 was conducted by PW14. Later, on transfer of PW16, the further investigation was taken up by PW17 and PW13 opined both in the autopsy report and in the final opinion issued after receipt of TSFSL report that the cause of death was ‘Manual Strangulation’. Later, on conclusion of entire investigation, PW16 filed the charge sheet against accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 109 r/w Section 34 IPC.
3. On filing and verification of the said charge sheet, the learned XXIV Additional
Metropolitan Magistrate, R.R. District, at Hayathnagar had taken cognizance of the case for the offence under Sections 302, 201, 109 r/w Section 34 IPC against the accused
Nos.1 and 2 and later, on their appearance before the said Court, the copies of the
Judgment in SC No. 159 of 2020 Page No. 6 of total 30 pages documents were furnished to them as required under Section 208 of Cr.P.C and the case was committed to the Court of Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar
U/Sec.209 of Cr.P.C vide PRC.No.28 of 2019 since the matter is exclusively triable by the
Court of Sessions. Later, the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar made over the case to this Court to dispose of the case according to law vide SC No. 159 of 2020.
4. On appearance of the accused Nos.1 and 2 before this court, the charge for the offences under Sections 302, 201, 109 r/w Section 34 IPC were framed against them, the contents of the same were read over and explained to them in their vernacular language, for which they denied the charge, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. In order to prove its case, the Prosecution has examined PW-1 to PW-17 and got marked Exs.P1 to P20 apart from MOs. 1 to 4 on its behalf. The learned Addl. Public
Prosecutor given up the evidence of remaining listed witnesses (LWs. 5, 9, 12, 15 and 19 to 21).
6. After closure of the Prosecution evidence, the accused Nos.1 and 2 were examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C, by placing before them the incriminating material appearing in the evidence of Prosecution witnesses, for which they denied the same and reported no evidence in support of their defence.
7. Heard both sides and perused the record. The learned counsel for the Accused filed rulings in addition to submission to oral arguments.
8. It is argued on behalf of the state by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the prosecution has successfully proved its case against both the Accused in view of the testimony of the material witnesses and also the documents produced on record. It has been further argued by the learned prosecutor that the chain of circumstances is complete and that it clearly points towards the guilt of the accused and that the availability of CCTV
Judgment in SC No. 159 of 2020 Page No. 7 of total 30 pages footages and the accused No.1 being identified during test identification parade strengthens their case further and so the Accused be convicted.
9(i). Per contra, it is the contention of the learned counsel for accused No.1 that even as per the prosecution, the accused No.2 left the company of deceased several years ago i.e.
in 2009, as such, a very remote incident being cited as motive for this crime raises suspicion especially since none of the witnesses have an idea about the exact disputes between the couple and that the case lodged by the accused No.2 against the deceased was for the offence under Section 498-A IPC, as such, her presence on every adjournment was neither necessary nor was it any compulsion, as such, the case of the prosecution that the acquaintance between both the accused developed at court also raises suspicion and that even if such contention is considered to be true, mere exchange of phone numbers and making phone calls cannot prove criminal conspiracy since the exact conversations that took place continue to remain unknown and also since the Investigating
Officer failed to show the exact date on which they conspired on phonecall and that mere filing of the CDRs of the phone number belonging to accused No.1 does not help the prosecution case in any way.
9(ii). It is next limb of his arguments that the prosecution failed to examine any witness to prove that the deceased was last seen alive with the accused No.1 and that it is not specifically mentioned as to where the accused No.1 picked the deceased or where they went and that it is not even known if they proceeded together after consuming alcohol or if they dispersed, as such, filing CCTV footage of Bhavani Bar and Restaurant showing both of them consuming alcohol does not help and that the employees of the the said bar as
Pws 5 and 6 turned hostile and that PW16 admitted during his cross-examination that he did not collect any evidence to prove that the deceased and accused No.1 were present at the scene of offence leading to the chain of circumstances remaining broken.
Judgment in SC No. 159 of 2020 Page No. 8 of total 30 pages 9(iii). It is further argued by him that inspite of not being competent to collect CCTV footage, PW10 collected the same and that the 65-B Certificate collected does not have provisions and that none of the prosecution witnesses identified the accused and that the authority concerned of Jio network was not examined for reasons unknown and that no thumb impressions were noted by the doctor who conducted autopsy which, generally are found in cases of manual strangulation; and finally prayed to pass judgment acquitting the accused on the ground on benefit of doubt.
10. It is contended by the learned counsel for accused No.2 that there are contradictions in the evidence of Prosecution witnesses with respect to lodging complaint under Ex.P1 and that no evidence was filed to prove that accused No.2 filed a case against the deceased at all and that the phone number used by her to talk to the accused No.1 is also not mentioned and that both of the accused were not found in the CCTV footage of Arun vilas hotel filed by the prosecution and that the prosecution also failed to prove that the accused No.2 was the nominee of the deceased in respect of his SR register or LIC policies or other properties to prove her motive to kill him for monetary benefit and that the evidence of PW3, infact, shows that it is she, who received the benefits after the death of the deceased and not the accused No.2, as such, neither the motive nor her involvement is proven and she is, hence, entitled for being acquitted on the ground of benefit of doubt.
11. In support of the aforementioned contentions, the learned defence counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad in the matter of Shaik Nazeer Ahmed Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2023 (3) ALT (Crl.) 54 (D.B.)(T.S.) wherein, their lordships held in paragraph No. 18 that:
“In a case of circumstantial evidence, the entire chain of evidence must be complete and the conclusions which are arrived after examining
Judgment in SC No. 159 of 2020 Page No. 9 of total 30 pages the chain of evidence must point towards the culpability of the accused and to no other conclusion”.
12. The learned defence counsel placed reliance on another decision of the Hon’ble
High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad in the matter of Bheemanolla Dasu @
Ramadasu Vs. State of Telangana, 2024 (2) ALT (Crl.) 188 (DB)(T.S.) wherein, it was held in paragraph No. 41 that:
“Therefore, when the prosecution aims to prove the case based on circumstantial evidence, all incriminating facts and circumstances must be fully established without leaving any gaps in the chain of circumstances”.
13. The learned defence counsel placed reliance on another decision of the Hon’ble
High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad in the matter of Kyasagari
Shantamma and another Vs. State of Telangana, 2025 (1) ALD (Crl.) 348 (TS) wherein, it was held in paragraph No. 14 that:
“The prosecution case cannot rely on circumstances which are loosely knit and there being several discrepancies and inconsistencies in the version of the prosecution. The prosecution version should always be convincing and without an element of doubt or suspicion”.
14. The learned defence counsel placed reliance on another decision of the Hon’ble
High Court of Judicature, Telangana and Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in the matter of D.
Srinivasa Rao Vs. State, 2018 (1) ALD (Crl.) 311 wherein, it was held in paragraph No.
10 that:
“... Once there is no primary evidence and there is no secondary evidence certificate which is mandatory ... the so-called tape-recorded
Judgment in SC No. 159 of 2020 Page No. 10 of total 30 pages conversation when totally inadmissible and cannot at all be looked into for not even a case of possibility of obtaining and filing certificate for admissibility of secondary evidence”.
15. The learned defence counsel placed reliance on another decision of the Hon’ble
High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra
Pradesh in the matter of Panchikatla Sreenivasulu Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2018 (1) ALT (Crl.) 304 (DB) (A.P.) wherein, it was held in paragraph No. 12 that:
“... The case is based on circumstantial evidence. The obligation on the part of the prosecution to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and all the connecting links in the circumstances should lead to conclusion that it is the accused and the accused alone who has perpetrated the crime”.
16. The learned defence counsel placed reliance on another decision of the Hon’ble
Apex Court in the matter of Venkatesh @ Chandra and Another etc Vs. State of
Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 387 wherein, it was held in paragraph No. 19 that:
“We must observe that we have repeatedly found a tendency on part of the Prosecuting Agency in getting the entire statement recorded rather than only that part of the statement which leads to the discovery of facts. In the process, a confession of an accused which is otherwise hit by the principles of Evidence Act finds its place on record. Such kind of statements may have a direct tendency to influence and prejudice the mind of the Court. This practice must immediately be stopped. In the present case, the Trial Court not only extracted the entire statements but also relied upon them”.
Judgment in SC No. 159 of 2020 Page No. 11 of total 30 pages
17. Basing on the contentions of both sides, now the points that would arise for determination before this court is :
“Whether the Prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused
Nos. 1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201,
109 r/w Section 34 IPC beyond reasonable doubt?”
18. POINT :- The offences alleged against the Accused are under Sections 302, 201, 109 r/w Section 34 IPC. In order to establish the above alleged charges, the prosecution examined Pws 1 to 17 and Exs.P1 to P20 and Mos.1 to 4 have been marked.
19. Out of 17 witnesses examined on behalf of Prosecution, PW1 is the Complainant and younger brother of the Deceased, PW2 is the brother-in-law of the Deceased, PW3 is the second wife of the Deceased, PW4 is another younger brother of the deceased, Pws5 and 6 were the then cashier and waiter at Bhavani Bar and Restaurant, PW7 is the witness for scene of offence cum seizure panchanama and Rough sketch, PW8 is the mediator for Inquest panchanama, PW9 is the panch witness for confession cum seizure panchanama of accused Nos.1 and 2, PW10 is the manager of Aruna Vilas Hotel who handed over CCTV footage, PW11 is the panch witness for confession of accused No.2 and seizure report during police custody, PW12 is the panch witness for confession cum seizure panchanama of accused Nos.1 and 2, PW13 is the doctor who conducted autopsy over the deadbody of the deceased, PW14 is the Magistrate who conducted Test
Identification parade of accused No.1, Pws 15 to 17 are the Investigating Officers.
20. It is deposed by PW1 that the marriage of his deceased brother who worked in
Postal department took place with the accused No.2 about 20 years ago and that they resided at different places in Hyderabad and that due to some disputes that arose in the year 2009, the accused No.2 left company of the deceased and went to her parental house at Miryalaguda and that subsequently, he came to know that the deceased married PW3 and was transferred to Gadwal and that a complaint was lodged by accused No.2 in the
Judgment in SC No. 159 of 2020 Page No. 12 of total 30 pages year 2010 against the deceased and his 17 other family members including him (this witness) during pendency of which, the deceased met with an accident and sustained severe bleeding injuries and joined duty after undergoing treatment for 90 days and was transferred to Medak and attended duty from Hyderabad while PW3 stayed at
Kammaguda, Vanasthalipuram.
It is further deposed by PW1 that on 02-09-2018 at about 05:00 AM, PW2 informed him over phone that the deceased died in an accident near Gurramguda, as such, he rushed to Hyderabad and visitied both the place of accident and the hospital where the deadbody of the deceased was kept and observed that there were no major damages to the vehicle and no injuries on the deadbody except a ligature mark around his neck leading to him lodging the complaint under Ex.P1 and that he came to know later that it was the accused No.1 who was driving the car at the time of accident.
21. It is evidenced by PW2 that the marriage of the deceased and the accused No.2 took place about 20 years ago and they remained issuless, as such, the deceased married
PW3 in the year 2009 and that the accused No.2, who left company of the deceased earlier, lodged a complaint against him and 17 other family members including him (this witness) and that the deceased purchased one Xylo vehicle for which, he used to work as driver and that they all would go to Nidamanur Court in the said vehicle and that subsequently, the accused No.1 worked as driver and took them there and that it was at the court that the accused Nos.1 and 2 got acquaintance with eachother and exchanged phone numbers.
It is further deposed by PW2 that about 6 years ago, on one day at about 02:30 AM to 03:00 AM, he received a phonecall stating that his deceased brother-in-law died in an accident that took place near Injapur X roads, as such, he rushed there and also observed the deadbody at hospital and found a ligature mark around the neck and that PW1 lodged
Judgment in SC No. 159 of 2020 Page No. 13 of total 30 pages a complaint. This witness stated that he has suspicion against the accused Nos.1 and 2 as the accused No.2 bore grudge against the deceased for marrying PW3.
22. PW3 is the second wife of the deceased and it is her evidence that the marriage between the deceased and accused No.2 took place about 20 years ago, but they remained issuelss and as such, the deceased married her in the year 2009 and that she is blessed with two children and that the accused No.2 left company of the deceased, went to her parental house and lodged a complaint against him and 17 others including her and that they all attended Nidamanur Court in a Xylo Vehicle belonging to the deceased which was driven by accused No.1 and that it was at the court where both the accused got acquainted with each other and exchanged phone numbers.
It is further deposed by PW3 that on 02-09-2018 at about 02:00 AM, on PW2 receiving a phone call stating that the deceased died in an accident that took place near
Injapur X roads, she along with him rushed to the place of accident and also saw the deadbody at hospital and observed a ligature mark around his neck. This witness too, suspected the accused Nos.1 and 2 citing the same reason as her brother i.e. PW2.
23. The evidence of PW4 is that the marriage of the deceased and accused No.2 took place about 20 years ago, but they remained issuelss and as such, the deceased married
PW3 in the year 2010 and that due to some disputes, the accused No.2 left company of the deceased, went to her parental house and that the deceased had a Xylo Vehicle which was driven by accused No.1 and that on 02-09-2018 at about 02:00 AM, on PW1 receiving a phone call stating that the deceased died in an accident that took place near
Gurramguda, he along with PW1 and other family members visited the place of accident and also saw the deadbody at hospital and observed a ligature mark around his neck and that PW1 lodged complaint.
Judgment in SC No. 159 of 2020 Page No. 14 of total 30 pages
24. PWs5 and 6 were the then cashier and waiter at Bhavani bar and Restaurant respectively and both of them pleaded ignorance with respect to the facts of the case, as such, they were declared as hostile witnesses and their respective statements, on being denied by them during cross-examination by learned Additional Public Prosecutor, were marked as Exs.P2 and P3.
25. PW7 evidenced that on 02-09-2018 at about 10:00 PM, on being asked by PW15 to come to Injapur Kaman, he went there along with LW9/A. Dasrath and that PW15 conducted scene of offence panchnama and drafted rough sketch of the scene marked under Exs.P4 and P5 respectively during which, they found one Xylo car bearing No. TS 07 UG 2221 dashed to electric police and that on completion of the panchanama, he and
LW9 attested the same. Since this witness did not depose about seizure of number plate from the scene, he was declared partly hostile and was subjected to cross-examination during which, he admitted that the number plate was seized from the scene of offence in his presence and also identified it on it being produced in the open court.
26. PW8 deposed that on 02-09-2018, he along with LW12/Srinivasulu went to OGH,
Hyderabad to see the deadbody of their deceased colleague Keshya Naik and that on being requested, they acted as panch witness to the Inquest panchanama conducted by SI of police, PS Vanasthalipuram that is marked under Ex.P6 and that they observed that neck of the deceased was pressed and there was a mark and that they attested on the panchanama on its completion.
27. PW9 deposed that the accused never confessed anything before her and that on one day about 5 years ago, while she was attending her work near Injapur Kaman, the
Police, Vanasthalipuram obtained her signatures on some papers. This witness was declared hostile since she turned against her own version stated before the police and her signatures, on being identified by her, are marked under Exs.P7 and P8 respectively.
Judgment in SC No. 159 of 2020 Page No. 15 of total 30 pages
28. PW8 is the manager at Aruna Vilas Hotel and he deposed that in the month of
September, 2018, he provided CCTV footage of his hotel on being asked for it by two police personnel and that he also issued 65-B certificate. MO.1 and Ex.P9 are marked through this witness.
29. PW11 did not support the prosecution case stating that the accused No.2 did not confess anything before him and further deposed that about six years ago, when he was present at the police station pertaining to his personal case, his signatures were obtained by the police, as such, he is declared as hostile witness and his signature, on being identified by him is marked under Ex.P10.
30. It is deposed by PW12 that on 03-09-2018 at about 10:00 AM, as per the instructions of the Tahsildar, he along with PW9 went to Injapur and met PW16 and two other persons who were in police custody and that on being enquired separately, they disclosed their names as Sabavath Vinod and Kethavath Padma and further confessed that they got acquainted with eachother when the deceased attended Nidamanur Court in his car driven by Vinod for hearing of the case filed by Padma and that on being requested by Padma to eliminate the deceased with a promise to give Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten
Lakhs Only) out of his LIC benefits that she would get, both of them hatched a plan and an amount of Rs.15,000/- was also given towards advance at a hotel at Miryalaguda and that later, Vinod picked the deceased from LB Nagar in a car and they consumed alcohol in a wine shop near Injapur shortly after which, Vinod killed the deceased Keshya Naik by stragulation and then hit the car to electric pole creating an accident like scene to escape from criminal liability.
It is further deposed by this witness that the police recorded the aforementioned confession under cover of confessional panchanama whose relevant portion is marked under Ex.P11 and seized Rs.8,100/- and Smart phone marked under MOs. 2 and 3
Judgment in SC No. 159 of 2020 Page No. 16 of total 30 pages respectively from Vinod (Accused No.1). This witness identified both the accused in the court hall.
31. PW13 deposed in her evidence that on 02-09-2018 at about 02:35 PM, on receipt of requisition, she conducted PME over the deadbody of the Deceased by name Kethavath
Keshya Naik and found antemortem injuries mentioned in column No.9 of PME report marked under Ex.P12 and further stated the time of death was 12-18 hours prior to the date of autopsy. After receiving toxicology report No. 2217/2018 from FSL, she gave her final opinion under Ex.P13 mentioning the cause of death of the deceased as to Manual
Strangulation.
32. PW14 is the Magistrate who conducted Test Identification Parade of the accused
No.1. It is her evidence that she conducted TIP inside Central Prison, Cherlapally on 29- 09-2018 at 01:40 PM, and after following due process, she conducted TIP wherein, Pws 5 and 6 identified the suspect/Accused No.1 from the row where he was standing amongst the non-suspects after which, the statement of accused No.1 was also recorded. Ex.P14 is the Requisition of the police, Ex.P15 is the statement of the accused No.1 and Ex.P16 is the TIP proceedings.
33. Pws.15 to 17 are the Investigating Officers and they deposed about the investigation done by them in this case. Exs.P17 to P20 and MO.4 are marked through them.
34. In order to bring home the guilt of the Accused under Sections 302 and 109 IPC, the prosecution has to establish the following ingredients:
302 IPC:
1. Death of a human being was caused.
2. Such death was caused by or in consequence of the Act of the Accused.
3. Such act was done -
Judgment in SC No. 159 of 2020 Page No. 17 of total 30 pages a. with the intention of causing death or b. that the Accused knew it to be likely to cause death or c. that the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
109 IPC: Punishment of abetment if the act abetted is committed in
consequence and where no express provision is made for its
punishment.—
Whoever abets any offence shall, if the act abetted is committed in consequence of the abetment, and no express provision is made by this
Code for the punishment of such abetment, be punished with the punishment provided for the offence.
35. One of the undisputed facts is that the marriage of the Accused No.2 was performed with the deceased about 20 years ago, but they remained issueless and since disputes arose between them as the deceased used to beat her in intoxicated state and did not mend his ways despite talks being held, the Accused No.2 filed dowry harassment case against him which was pending at Nidamanur Court. It is also not in dispute that meanwhile, the deceased married Kethavath Shailaja/PW3 and was blessed with two children leading to the Accused No.2 filing another case against the deceased, his second wife/PW3 and other family members which was also pending at Nidamanur Court. The record also shows that the deceased was working in Postal department and was posted to
Medak at the time of incident.
36. It is the case of the prosecution that PW1 received a phonecall from PW2 stating that the deceased by name Keshya Naik met with an accident while proceeding in his
Mahindra Xylo vehicle bearing No. TS 07 UE 2221 which hit the electric pole near Injapur
Judgment in SC No. 159 of 2020 Page No. 18 of total 30 pages
Kaman leading to his death on spot. The evidence of Pws.8, 13 and other material witnesses and Ex.P6/Inquest panchanama and Ex.P12/PME report show that the death of the deceased occurred on 02-09-2018. From the above evidence, the prosecution established that the Deceased died on 02-09-2018 in the Mahindra Xylo car bearing No.
TS 07 UE 2221 near Injapur Kaman. Further, neither the death of the Deceased nor the place or time of his death is disputed by the Defence thereby warranting no further discussion in that regard.
37. Admittedly, there are no eye-witnesses to the incident. Therefore, it is to be seen whether the prosecution could find out the person(s) responsible for the death of the deceased and whether it could establish its case basing on the circumstantial evidence.
38. To prove the guilt of the Accused person basing on circumstantial evidence, the following points are to be observed:
1. The circumstances should be fully proven.
2. The circumstances should be conclusive in nature.
3. All the facts established should be consistant only with the hypothesis of guilt.
4. The circumstances should, to a moral certainity, exclude the possibility of guilt of any person other than the Accused.
Therefore, law is well settled that where the circumstantial evidence consists of a chain of continuous circumstances linked up with one another, the chain of such circumstances must be complete and must clearly point to the guilt of the Accused.
39. Now it is to be seen whether the Prosecution has proven that the chain of circumstances is continuous and is pointing towards the guilt of none but the Accused. It is settled preposition of criminal law that the prosecution is supposed to prove its case by leading cogent, convincing, reliable and trustworthy evidence beyond shadow of all
Judgment in SC No. 159 of 2020 Page No. 19 of total 30 pages reasonable doubt and that the burden of proof is always on the prosecution and it cannot rely on the weakness of the case set up by the Accused.
40. The prosecution case as seen from the charge-sheet and confessional panchanama is that the accused No.2 was the first wife of deceased and she filed a case against him and his family after coming to know about his second marriage with PW3 pending which, the deceased used to come to Nidamanur court for case hearing in his car driven by his driver who was none other than the accused No.1. It is further case of the prosecution that it was at the Court where both the accused got acquainted with each other and exchanged their phone numbers after which, the accused No.2 made frequent phone calls to the accused No.1 to enquire about her husband and that with an intention that after his demise, the job and benefits of the deceased would be received by her, she hatched a plan to eliminate the deceased and induced the accused No.1 to commit the crime promising to give Rs.10,00,000/- after execution of the plan. To prove its aforementioned contention that the accused Nos.1 and 2 conversed on phone, the prosecution filed CDRs and CAF pertaining to number 9381212957 belonging to the accused No.1 which are marked as Exs.P19 and P20 that too, at the belated stage of trial vide Orders in Crl.MP.No. 09/2025 without even examining the nodal officer who issued them despite there being no mention of them being collected during the course of investigation in the charge-sheet.
It is contended by the learned counsel for accused No.1 that non-examination of nodal officer of Jio network and certificate under Section 65(B) not being furnished along with the call data records proves fatal to the case of the prosecution since such CDRs are inadmissible in evidence. The learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Anvar P.V. Vs. P.K. Basheer and Others, AIR 2025
SUPREME COURT 180 wherein another judgment in the matter of State (NCT of Delhi)
Judgment in SC No. 159 of 2020 Page No. 20 of total 30 pages
Vs. Navjot Sandhu alias Afsan Guru, (2005) 11 SCC 600 was referred to and it was held by the two Judge-bench in paragraph No. 150 therein that:
“... Section 65 enables secondary evidence of the contents of a document to be adduced if the original is of such nature as not to be easily movable. It is not in dispute that the information contained in the call records is stored in huge servers which cannot be easily moved and produced in the court... Hence, printouts taken from the computers/servers by mechanical process and certified by a responsible official of the service-providing company can be led in evidence through a witness who can identify the signatures of the certifying officer or otherwise speak of the facts based on his personal knowledge”.
41. The learned defence counsel placed reliance on another decision of the Hon’ble
Apex Court in the matter of Harpal Singh alias Chhota Vs. State of Punjab, 2017 (1)
ALD (Crl.) 199 (SC) wherein, it was held in paragraph No. 15 that:
“... As apparently the prosecution has relied upon the secondary evidence in the form of printed copy of the call details, even assuming that the mandate of Section 65-B(2) had been complied with, in absence of a certificate under Section 65-B(4), the same has to be held inadmissible in evidence”.
In this regard, the evidence of PW2 shows that the deceased married his sister/PW3 in the year 2009 and the cross-examination of PW3 herself shows that she is claiming the pension benefits of the deceased which raises suspicion on the contention of the prosecution that the accused No.2 planned to eliminate the deceased after years of realising about his second marriage to usurp his pension and LIC benefits. Ex.P20 is the photostat copy of customer application form pertaining to the mobile number 9381212957
Judgment in SC No. 159 of 2020 Page No. 21 of total 30 pages belonging to the Accused No.1 issued by authority of Jio Network and Ex.P19 consist of
CDRs pertaining to that number. Perusal of Ex.P19 shows that there were considerable number of calls between the number belonging to the Accused No.1 and another number 8466841009. However, neither CAF nor CDRs pertaining to the mobile number 8466841009 are filed to prove that it belong to the accused No.2 and also to prove that she was the one who used it at the relevant period of time to converse and conspire with
Accused No.1. Further, no official from Jio network has been cited as a witness or examined to prove the authencitity of the documents which are not supported by 65-B
Certificate. Thus, in absence of any evidence being brought on record to prove that the phone numbers mentioned in the charge-sheet were used by none other than the Accused
before commission of offence to hatch a plan for elimination of deceased, mere filing of
CAF and CDRs of only the mobile number registered in the name of Accused No.1 would be of no help and in view of non-examination of authority concerned and non furnishing of
Section 65-B Certificate, it is opined that the inference drawn in the decisions relied upon by the learned defence counsel and mentioned supra is very much applicable to the facts of the present case in hand.
42. It is further case of the prosecution that on 27-08-2018, the accused No.2 met the accused No.1 at Aruna Vilas Hotel situated opposite to Miryalaguda Bus stop and gave
Rs.15000/- towards advance for commission of offence. To prove the aforementioned aspect, the prosecution got examined PW10 who was the manager of Aruna Vilas Hotel back then and who handed over CCTV footage. He deposed that in the month of
September 2018, on being requested by the Police he produced MO.1 CCTV footage besides issuing Ex.P9 65-B certificate. In this regard, it is contended by the learned counsel for accused No.1 that Ex.P9 is not the accurate 65-B certificate, as such, MO.1 that is unaccompanied by a proper certificate under Section 65-B, is inadmissible in
Judgment in SC No. 159 of 2020 Page No. 22 of total 30 pages evidence. To support such contention, reliance has been placed on the decision of the
Hon’ble High Court of Judicature for the State of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh at
Hyderabad in the matter of Kondapaka Sridhar @ Sidhu Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2018 (2) ALT (Crl.) 317 (DB) (A.P.) wherein, it was held in paragraph No. 9 that:
“In Anvar P.V. Vs. P. K. Bahseer, Criminal Appeal No. 4226 of 2012, the Apex Court held “An electronic record by way of secondary evidence shall not be admitted in evidence unless the requirements under
Section 65-B are satisfied. Thus, in the case of CD, VCD, chip etc., the same shall be accompanied by the certificate in terms of Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible”.
Reliance has also been placed on another decision of the Hon’ble High Court of
Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati in the matter of Chekuri Raja Rao (A-2) and another Vs.
State of Andhra Pradesh, 2023 (1) ALT (Crl.) 240 (DB) (A.P.) wherein, it was held in paragraph No. 25 that:
“In the light of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the requirement under Section 65-B(4) is a condition precedent to the admissibility o evidence by way of electronic record... and any amount of oral evidence in place of such certificate cannot possibly suffice as
Section 65-B(4) is a mandatory requirement of the law and Section 65-
B(4) of the Evidence Act clearly states that secondary evidence is admissible only if led in the manner stated and not otherwise”.
43. The learned defence counsel placed reliance on another decision of the Hon’ble
Apex Court in the matter of Randeep Singh @ Rana and Another Vs. State of Haryana and others, 2025 (1) ALT (Crl.) 180 (SC) wherein, it was held that:
Judgment in SC No. 159 of 2020 Page No. 23 of total 30 pages “...The CD did not bear any marking or sign from either of the witnesses. Most importantly, the prosecution failed to produce the certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act concerning the CD.
Therefore, the evidence in the form of the CD will have to be kept out of consideration as it is not admissible in evidence”.
On perusal of the entire footage spanning over an hour in MO.1, it is noted that neither of the accused are found either entering or dining at the hotel and no other CCTV footage, apart from MO.1, is filed. Further, the 65-B certificate marked under Ex.P9 does not have relevant clause mentioned. Furthermore, it has been admitted by PW10 in his cross-examination that it is not mentioned in Ex.P9 that MO.1 is retrived and copied in pendrive without any changes, as such, question arises with regard to the admissibility of
MO.1 which is retrieved by someone who is incompetent for the same and is not backed by a 65-B certificate consistant of the clause and the inference drawn in the decisions relied upon supra are applicable to the case in hand. Further, even the witness to the confessional panchanama of Accused Nos.1 and 2 as PW9 and the mediator to confession-cum-seizure panchanama of Accused No.2 as PW11 turned hostile stating that the signatures were obtained on some papers and that no panchanama was conducted in their presence. All this undoubtedly strengthens the defense set up by the Accused that
MO.1 was retrieved by PW10 despite not being competent person to do so.
44. It is further case of the Prosecution that in pursuance of the plan that was hatched by them on 01-09-2019 at 17:30 hours, on being informed by the deceased that he was boarding bus at Medak, the Accused No.1 reached LB Nagar and waited for sometime after which, at about 22:00 hours, he picked the deceased and asked him to consume liquor along with him. Later, the Accused No.1 and the deceased went to Bhavani Bar and
Restaurant, Gurramguda where, they both, consumed liquor. In proof of the
Judgment in SC No. 159 of 2020 Page No. 24 of total 30 pages aforementioned contention, the Prosecution got examined the then cashier and waiter at the said bar as Pws. 5 and 6 who did not support the Prosecution case pleading ignorance with regard to the facts of the case. Both of these witnesses were subjected to cross- examination by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor during the course of which, they denied their statements that are marked as Exs.P2 and P3 respectively and also denied identifying the Accused No.1 in the Test Identification Parade. They added that they identified the Accused No.1 after his photograph being shown by the Police. Further, no evidence has been brought on record to prove that the accused No.1 drove the car on the date of incident and that he picked the deceased at LB Nagar and drove to the bar.
45. It is further case of the Prosecution that after consuming alcohol at the said bar, both the deceased, who was in semi-conscious state and the Accused No.1 proceeded in the car towards Injapur and that sometime thereafter, taking advantage of the fact that the deceased fell asleep while sitting beside the driver seat, the Accused No.1 stopped the car after crossing Gurramguda X roads, sat in the rear seat, locked the car door and strangulated the deceased to death after which, he strolled there for sometime and at around 02:30 to 03:00 hours, he hit the car to the electric pole to project the incident as an accident and then fell down and that 108 ambulance was called by passers by which reached there and declared the deceased dead.
The learned counsel for accused No.1 refuted such allegation stating that no evidence has been brought on record to prove that the accused No.1 and the deceased proceeded together after consumption of alcohol and placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Ganpat Singh Vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh, 2018 (1) ALD (Crl.) 35 (SC) wherein, it was held in paragraph No. 10 that:
“Evidence that the accused was last seen in the company of the deceased assumes significance when the lapse of time between the point
Judgment in SC No. 159 of 2020 Page No. 25 of total 30 pages when the accused and the deceased were seen together and when the deceased is found dead is so minimal as to exclude the possibility of a supervening event involving the death at the hands of another”.
In this regard, none of the Prosecution witnesses, either circumstantial or official, deposed that the Accused No.1 was present at the scene of offence when the ambulance arrived and it is also observed that the driver of the said ambulance is not cited as a witness for reasons unknown. Perusal of entire record shows that no iota of evidence, either oral or documentary, such as the tower location of the mobile phones of both the deceased and the Accused No.1, has been filed to prove that both of them did not disperse after cosuming alcohol at the bar, but infact proceeded together towards Injapur thereby leaving the chain of circumstances broken inturn raising suspicion on the case set up by the Prosecution altogether.
46. PW14 conducted Test Identification Parade of Accused No.1 at Central Prison,
Cherlapally and it is deposed by her that Pws.5 and 6 identified the Accused No.1 who stood in the row of non-suspects and that she recorded the statement of Accused under
Ex.P15 and issued TIP proceedings under Ex.P16. However, Pws.5 and 6 denied identifying the Accused No.1 and infact added that they identified him after his photograph being shown by the Police. The learned defence counsel placed reliance on another decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Vijayan Vs. State of Kerala, (1999) 3
SCC 54 wherein, it was held that: When a witness identified the accused in Test
Identification parade, but failed to identify him in Court, the Test Identification Parade loses its importance.
47. PW13 condcuted Post mortem examination on 02-09-2018 and it is admitted by him during his cross-examination that he gave his final opinion under Ex.P13 after receipt of
Judgment in SC No. 159 of 2020 Page No. 26 of total 30 pages
FSL report. It is also admitted by him that in cases of Manual strangulation, it can be known after PME. The reason for PW13 not giving preliminary opinion with regard to the death being caused due to “Manual Strangulation” and also the reason for him surprisingly stating it as the cause of death after receipt of toxicology report remains unknown. Further, it is admitted by him that there are no fractures on thyroid and hyoid bone which raises suspicion especially in view of the unexplained delay in issuance of preliminary opinion. All this goes to make the evidence of PW13 unreliable.
48. It is a settled principle of law and has been held time and again in catena of judgments including the one in the matter of Sheila Sebastian vs R.Jawaharaj, AIR 2018
SC 2434 that: Law is well settled with regard to the fact that however strong the suspicion
may be, it cannot take the place of proof. Strong suspicion, coincidence, grave doubt cannot take the place of proof. Always a duty is cast upon the Courts to ensure that suspicion does not take place of the legal proof....The standard of proof in a criminal trial is proof beyond reasonable doubt because the right to personal liberty of a citizen can never be taken away by the standard of preponderance of probability.
49. The learned defence counsel placed reliance on another decision of the Hon’ble
Apex Court in the matter of Jose @ Pappachan Vs. The Sub-Inspector of Police,
Koyilandy and another, 2017 (1) ALT (Crl.) 101 (SC) wherein, it was held in paragraph
No. 53 that:
“It is a trite proposition of law, that suspicion however grave, it cannot take the place of proof and that the prosecution in order to succeed on a criminal charge cannot afford to lodge its case in the realm of “may be true” but has to essentially elevate it to the grade of “must be true”. In a criminal prosecution, the court has a duty to ensure that mere conjectures or suspicion do not take the place of legal proof and ina
Judgment in SC No. 159 of 2020 Page No. 27 of total 30 pages situation where a reasonable doubt is entertained in the backdrop of evidence available, to prevent miscarriage of justice, benefit of doubt is to be extended to the accused.
...It is also a primary postulation in criminal jurisprudence that if 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”.
50. Pondering over the ongoing discussion, entire facts, evidence and circumstances of the case and considering the decision cited supra, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution, whose version is expected to be strongly knit and bereft of discrepancies and inconsistencies, has not brought the requisite evidence like the tower locations of mobile phones and CCTV footages on record, although it was very much possible and has infact, miserably failed to prove the guilt of the Accused Nos. 1 and 2 beyond the shadow of all measurable doubt leading to the chain of circumstances remaining broken resulting in it not being clinchingly establish that the death of the deceased Keshya Naik was caused by none other than the accused No.1 in pursuance of criminal conspiracy with accused No.2. Therefore, this Court hereby proceeds to acquit the
Accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence under Section 109 IPC. This Court further proceeds to acquit the Accused Nos. 1 for the offence under Section 302 IPC.
51. To attract the offence under under Section 201 IPC, the Accused must have caused disappearance of the evidence of the offence or must have given false information to screen the offender.
In the present case, the prosecution has failed to prove that the Accused No.1 has committed murder of the Deceased, as such, it cannot be said that he thereafter caused disappearance of evidence by hitting the car to a high tension electric pole at the scene of
Judgment in SC No. 159 of 2020 Page No. 28 of total 30 pages offence to project the murder as an accident. Therefore, the prosecution also failed to connect the Accused No.1 with the offence under Section 201 IPC and therefore, he is entitled for acquittal for the said offence.
52. In result, the Accused Nos. 1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence under
Section 302 IPC and are acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. Further, the Accused No.1 is found not guilty for the offence under Section 201 IPC and is acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C for the said offence. Their bail bonds shall be in force for six months in view of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. MO.1 shall be destroyed and Mos.2 to 4 shall be confiscated to
State after appeal time is over.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 15 th day of April, 2025.
IV Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For Prosecution:
PW1: Sri. Kethavath Chandu Naik, (Complainant and younger brother of the deceased).
PW2: Sri. Banoth Janu, (Circumstantial Witness and brother-in-law of the Deceased).
PW3: Smt. Kethavath Shailaja, (Circumstantial Witness and second wife of the deceased).
PW4 : Sri. Kethavath Ramu Naik (Circumstantial Witness and younger brother of the Deceased).
PW5: Sri. Surakanti Ramana Reddy (Witness and the then cashier at Bhavani bar and Restaurant).
PW6 : Sri. Sandena Ganesh (Witness and the then waiter at Bhavani Bar and Restaurant).
PW7: Sri. Ramavath Srinu (Mediator for scene of offence-cum-seizure panchanama and rough sketch).
PW8 : Sri. Bhukhya Krishna (Mediator for Inquest panchanama).
Judgment in SC No. 159 of 2020 Page No. 29 of total 30 pages
PW9 : Smt. Mallela Andal (Mediator for confession-cum-seizure panchanama of accused Nos.1 and 2).
PW10 : Sri. Pacchava Sudhakar (The then manager of Aruna Vilas hotel who handed over the CCTV footage).
PW11 : Sri. Kotha Santosh Kumar (Mediator for confession panchanama of accused No.2 and seizure report).
PW12 : Sri. Kondareddy Anjaneyulu (Mediator for confession cum seizure panchanam of accused Nos.1 and 2).
PW13 : Sri. Dr. R. Sudha (Conducted PME over the dead body of the Deceased).
PW14 : Smt. Kshama Deshpande (Conducted Test Identification Parade).
PW15 : Sri. Ch. Sudhakar Rao (Issue FIR and 1st Investigating Officer).
PW16 : Sri. P. Narender (2nd Investigating Officer who remanded the accused).
PW17 : Sri. A. Venkataiah (3rd Investigating Officer who filed Charge-Sheet).
For Defense: - NIL-
EXHIBITS MARKED
For Prosecution:
Ex.P1 : Complaint dated 02-09-2018. Ex.P2 : 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW5. Ex.P3 : 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW6. Ex.P4 : Scene of offence panchanama dated 02-09-2018. Ex.P5 : Rough sketch of the scene. Ex.P6 : Inquest panchanama dated 02-09-2018. Ex.P7 : Signature of PW9 on the confessional panchanama of Accused No.1 dated 03-09-2018. Ex.P8 : Signature of PW9 on the confessional panchanama of Accused No.2 dated 03-09-2018. Ex.P9 : 65-B Certificate issued by PW10 in respect of MO.1 CCTV footage. Ex.P10 : Signature of PW11 on confession-cum-seizure panchanama of accused No.2
dated 08-09-2018.
Ex.P11 : Relevant portion of confessional panchanama of accused No.1. Ex.P12 : Postmortem Examination Report dated 02-09-2018. Ex.P13 : Final opinion dated 21-01-2019.
Judgment in SC No. 159 of 2020 Page No. 30 of total 30 pages
Ex.P14 : Requisition given by Inspector of Police, PS Vanasthalipuram to PW14 for conducting Test Identification Parade of the Accused No.1. Ex.P15 : Statement of accused No.1 recorded by PW14 after Test Identification Parade. Ex.P16 : Proceedings of Test Identification Parade dated 29-09-2018. Ex.P17 : Original FIR dated 02-09-2018. Ex.P18 : Seizure report dated 08-09-2018. Ex.P19 : Attested copy of CDR pertaining to mobile number 9381212957. Ex.P20 : Photostat copy of CAF of mobile No. 9381212957.
For Defense: - NIL -
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED
MO1 : CCTV footage of Aruna Vilas Hotel near Miryalaguda Bus stand. MO2 : Cash of Rs.8,100/- MO3 : Smart phone. MO4 : Micromax cell phone.
IV Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar