1 SC 46 of 2014
IN THE COURT OF SPL. JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF OFFENCES UNDER
S.Cs AND S.Ts (PoA) ACT-CUM-V ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, NELLORE
Present: Smt. J.Srilakshmi,
Spl. Judge for trial of offences under S.Cs and S.Ts (PoA) Act-
cum-V Additional Sessions Judge, Nellore
Thursday, the 23rd day of November, 2017
SESSIONS CASE No.46 of 2014
(P.R.C.No.20 of 2013 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kota, in Crime No.36 of 2012 of Vakadu P.S.)
Name of the Complainant:State – Sub Divisional Police Officer, Gudur Name of the Accused: 1) Challa Ashok Kumar, son of Chengaiah, aged 2 years
2) Gunji Suresh, son of Ramaiah, aged 28 years
3) Mali Gurunadham, son of Guravaiah, aged 66 years
4) Challa Chengaiah, son of Chenchaiah aged 45 years (All are Vaddera by caste, Kodivaka Vaddipalem village, hamlet of Juvvinattu village, Vakadu mandal
Offences:U/Sections 3(2)(v) of S.Cs and S.Ts (PoA) Act, 1989, u/s.302 and 201 IPC against A1 to A4
Plea of the Accused:Pleaded not guilty
Finding of the Judge:Found not guilty
Sentence of Order:In the result, A1 to A4 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 3(2)(v) of S.Cs and S.Ts (PoA) Act, 1989, u/s.302 and 201 IPC and accordingly, they are acquitted of the same under Sec.235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months. M.Os. 1 to 3 and the other unmarked case property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. Prosecution conducted by:Smt.Maddali Vijaya,
Additional Public Prosecutor, Nellore
2 SC 46 of 2014
Name of the Defence Sri.V.Upendra Rao, advocate, Nellore counsel:
This Sessions Case coming up before this Court on 10.11.2017 for hearing in the presence of above said Additional Public Prosecutor for Complainant and the above said advocate for accused and this matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court passed the following:
J U D G M E N T
1.The Sub Divisional Police Officer, Gudur filed charge sheet in
Crime No.36 of 2012 of Vakadu police station against A1 to A4 alleging commission of offences under Sections 3(2)(v) of S.Cs and S.Ts (PoA) Act, 1989 (for short “Act”) and u/s.302 r/w 34 and 201 of Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”).
2.The case of prosecution in brief is that A1 to A4 belong to other than Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe and Lw1/Peram Muthaiah belongs to Erukala community which comes under the category of Scheduled Tribe.
While A-1 was studying 5th class, the maternal uncle of A-1 by name Papaiah was moving closely with one Peram Swarupa/Lw3 who is the daughter of
Lw1/Peram Muthaiah and sister of the deceased Ramanaiah. At that time,
Lw1/Peram Muthaiah and the deceased Ramanaiah quarrelled with the said
Papaiah and approached the village elder Madhu Reddy. The said Madhu
Reddy mediated in this regard and imposed a fine of Rs.30,000/- on the said
Papaiah. Then the parents of A1 sent the said Papaiah to Gudur. Hence A1 developed grudge against Lw1/Peram Muthaiah and the deceased
Ramanaiah. A2 suspected that his wife Rohini has got illegal intimacy with the deceased Ramanaiah. A2 informed the same to A3 who is his father in law and expressed that they would kill the deceased Ramanaiah. A3 informed the same to A1 and A4. A1 to A4 warned the deceased Ramanaiah to discontinue his illegal contacts with the wife of A2. But he did not care them 3 SC 46 of 2014 and continued the same. Then A1 to A4 felt that the deceased Ramanaiah being Scheduled Tribe and continued illegal contacts with the lady belongs to their family and could not digest the same. A1 to A4 hatched a plan to kill the deceased Ramanaiah on the ground that the deceased Ramanaiah belongs to Scheduled Tribe. About one week prior to 20.06.2012, A1 to A4 met together at the house of A1 and decided to implement their plan and waiting for an opportunity. On 20.06.2012 at about 4.00 PM A3 noticed when the deceased Ramanaiah was in intoxication state. A3 informed the same to
A1, A2 and A4. Then A1 to A4 decided to implement their plan on that day itself. They hatched the plan by taking the deceased Ramanaiah to Kalluru tank.
On 20.06.2012 the decreased Ramanaiah went to his house and slept on a cot. At about 8 PM, Lw3/Peram Swarupa, the sister of the deceased Ramanaiah went to the house of the deceased Ramanaiah with fish curry to serve the meals to him and noticed that the deceased Ramanaiah was in deep sleep. Then Lw3/Peram Swarupa kept the meals bowl in the house and went back to her house. As per their plan, A2 to A4 went to
Kalluru tank into auto along with an iron rod. A1 went to the house of the deceased Ramanaiah and informed him that he got one problem and he can solve the problem and requested him to follow him to solve the same. Then the deceased Ramanaiah left his house on his motor cycle along with A1.
Lw3/Swarupa noticed while the deceased Ramanaiah was leaving the house on his motor cycle with A1 while talking through his cell phone. Then A1 took the deceased Ramanaiah to Kalluru tank and noticed A2 to A4 was at the tank. Lw14/Kumbala Nagaraju noticed while A2 to A4 were at Kalluru cross road with an auto. A1 took the deceased Ramanaiah to the sluice and talking with the deceased Ramanaiah as a part of his plan. In the meanwhile 4 SC 46 of 2014
A2 to A4 went there and all of them quarrelled with the deceased
Ramanaiah. Lw13/Ingilala Ramanaiah witnessed the same and went away.
Then A2 in pursuance of his intention beat the deceased Ramanaiah with an iron rod on his back side of the head. As a result, the deceased Ramanaiah sustained bleeding injury and fell on the ground. Then A3 sat on the waist of the deceased Ramanaiah and throttled his neck while A4 caught hold of the deceased Ramanaiah without moving and A1 caught hold of both the hands of the deceased Ramanaiah and also closed his mouth. A2 beat the deceased
Ramanaiah with an iron rod on his chest. As a result the deceased
Ramanaiah died at the spot. A1 to A4 observed the deceased Ramanaiah found that he lost his breath. A1 removed the shirt of the deceased
Ramanaiah and cleaned the blood stains on the body. A1 to A4 with an intention to screen the evidence of offence, decided to keep the dead body of the deceased Ramanaiah in his house only. Then they shifted the dead body of the deceased Ramanaiah into the auto brought by them and A2 drove the auto while A3 and A4 caught hold of the body. A1 started on the motor cycle of the deceased Ramanaiah. They stopped at the entrance of the village, shiftedthedeadbodyofthedeceased
Ramanaiah on the motor cycle, while A2 was driving the motor cycle, A4 caught hold of the dead body of the deceased Ramanaiah by keeping the same in their middle. A1 and A3 started by walking. Lw15/Kollu Venkata
Subbaiah and Lw16/Kudumula Ramanaiah witnessed while A2 and A4 were taking the deceased Ramanaiah on the motor cycle while A1 and A3 were walking towards village. A1 to A4 kept the dead body of the deceased
Ramanaiah on the ground in his house and went away.
On the morning of 21.06.2012 at about 7.00 a.m., Lw5/Gunji
Srinivasulu went to the house of the deceased Ramanaiah and calling the 5 SC 46 of 2014 deceased Ramanaiah with his name. Lw3/Swarupa noticed the same and went to Lw5/Srinivasulu and asked him for his visit. Lw5/Srinivasulu asked
Lw3/Swarupa for the electrical tester. Then Lw3/Swarupa went into the house of the deceased Ramanaiah and found the deceased Ramanaiah was on the floor. Lw3/Swarupa thought that the deceased Ramanaiah is sleeping. Lw3/Swarupa noticed the tester and found that it was broken. Then
Lw3/Swarupa informed the same to Lw5/Srinivasulu and tried to wake up the deceased Ramanaiah. Then Lw3/Swarupa noticed the bleeding on his head and raised cries. Lw6/Peram Durgaiah and others rushed to the house of the deceased Ramanaiah and found that the deceased Ramanaiah was already dead. Lw1/Peram Muthaiah returned home from Kothapatnam village and found the dead body of the deceased Ramanaiah.
Basing on the report of Lw1/Peram Muthaiah, police registered it as a case in crime No.36 of 2012 u/s.302 IPC and investigated into. During investigation, the Inspector of Police, Vakadu visited the scene of offence in the presence of mediators and got photographed the scene of offence and seized the material objects under the cover of observation report, got conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased Ramanaiah in the presence of panchayatdars and got conducted post mortem, got call details of the deceased Ramanaiah. On 28.8.2012 at Kalluru cross road on Gudur –
Dugarajapatnammainroadatabout11.30A.M,
A1 to A4 were detained, interrogated, they confessed the offences in the presence of mediators, they were arrested and seized the auto bearing
No.AP26TA7891 which was used at the time of commission of offence and also the shirt of the deceased Ramanaiah under the cover of mediator report.
On confession of A1, the iron rod used at the time of commission of offence was also seized from the abandoned well under the cover of mediator 6 SC 46 of 2014 report. A1 to A4 were produced before the court along with remand report.
During investigation the ingredients of Section 3(2)(v) of S.Cs and S.Ts (PoA) Act, 1989 were made out and hence the same is added to this case.
After receipt of post mortem certificate, after completion of investigation, the then Sub Divisional Police Officer, Gudur filed charge sheet against the accused under the above sections of law. Hence the charge sheet.
3.The learned Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Kota taken the case on file for the offences punishable u/Section 302 r/w 34 IPC and u/s.201 IPC and u/s.3(2)(v) of S.Cs and S.Ts (PoA) Act, 1989 and numbered as PRC
No.20 of 2013 and committed to this court to proceed further according to law as the offence u/Sec.3(2)(v) of S.Cs and S.Ts (PoA) Act, 1989 is exclusively triable by this Court. After receipt of the record, this court has taken the case on file for the offences punishable under Sections u/Section 302 r/w 34 IPC and u/s.201 IPC and u/s.3(2)(v) of S.Cs and S.Ts (PoA) Act, 1989 against the accused and numbered the case as S.C. No.46 of 2014 to proceed with for disposal according to law and in due course in accordance with the procedure contemplated under Sec.207 Cr.P.C., the copies of documents were furnished to the accused.
4. Before this Court, on hearing the advocate for defence and learned Additional Public Prosecutor, charges were framed under Sections 3(2)(v) of S.Cs and S.Ts (PoA) Act, 1989, u/s.302 and 201 IPC against A1 to
A4. When read over and explained the charges in Telugu, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. During trial, the prosecution got examined 15 witnesses out of 29 witnesses cited in the charge sheet and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.21 and
M.Os. 1 to 3 on its behalf.
7 SC 46 of 2014
6.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C., wherein the accused denied the incriminating material appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and pleaded innocence and claimed that they have not committed any offence. Further reported that there is no defence evidence on their behalf, but got marked Exs.D1 to D3 on their behalf.
7.Heard both sides. Perused the material available on record.
8.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor argued that the prosecution has examined as many as 15 witnesses and marked Exs.P.1 to
P.21 and M.Os.1 to 3 on its behalf. The oral evidence of prosecution witnesses coupled with the documentary evidence produced before the Court clearly establishes that the accused committed the offence and they are liable for punishment for the above said offence. The learned Addl. Public
Prosecutor further argued that the prosecution failed to produce the direct eyewitness for the incident but Pw6 to Pw8 observed the presence of the accused and the deceased at the scene of offence and the evidence of Pw9 is also supporting the evidence of prosecution as Pw12 identified A1 in open court as he was present at the time of seizure of iron rod from the abandoned well and moreover the evidence of prosecution witnesses categorically supporting the case of the prosecution and the accused are liable to be punished for the above said offence.
9.The learned counsel for the accused argued that the prosecution has miserably failed in establishing the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts though the prosecution has examined Pw1 to Pw15 and marked Exs.P1 to P21 and M.Os.1 to 3 on its behalf. There is no direct 8 SC 46 of 2014 eyewitnesses or evidence produced before the court. The prosecution relied on the circumstantial evidence, but the FIR contents are otherwise by showing the names of two other persons as suspected by Pw1 as there were serious disputes between Dega Chenchaiah and Atchaiah. The names of the accused were not mentioned in FIR. The panchayatdars also opined that
Dega Chenchaiah and his son are responsible for the offence. At the time of inquest, five witnesses were examined but no allegation is made out against these accused. The evidence of Pw6 to Pw8 are not believable, they were planted witnesses, there is no evidence put by the prosecution that how Pw8 know about the deceased and as per evidence he know about the death of the deceased on the next day and Pw8 is a stranger to A1 to A4 and the deceased. The prosecution is projected Pw8 to connect the true link and there are several discrepancies even in the evidence of Pw9, Pw10 is a stock mediator. Pw11 is a medical officer, Pw12 is not a truthful witness and the evidence of Investigating officers are also not established as to how the accused are connected with this crime. There is no call data filed by the prosecution. Moreover there are several suspicious circumstances in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. There is no consistency in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Therefore the prosecution has miserably failed in establishing the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts, and the benefit of doubt must goes to the accused that they prayed this court to acquit them.
10.Now the point for determination is:- “Whether the prosecution could able to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 3(2)(v) of S.Cs and S.Ts (PoA) Act, 1989, u/s.302 and 201 IPC against A1 to A4, beyond all reasonable doubts?” 9 SC 46 of 2014
P O I N T:
11.To bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution shall prove that the accused having known that the deceased Peram Ramanaiah belongs to Yerukala community which comes under the category of
Scheduled Tribe, killed him and screened the evidence of offence.
12.In order to prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined as many as 15 witnesses and marked Exs.P.1 to P.21 and
M.Os.1 to 3 on its behalf.
13.Pw1/Peram Muttaiah deposed that he belongs to Yerukula-
Scheduled Tribe community, that on 20.6.2012 during nigh hours himself and along with his musicians went to Kothapatnam village to tell
BURRAKATHA leaving Lw2/Mangamma and Lw3/Swarupa at his house, that he instructed Lw2/Mangamma and Lw6/Durgaiah to guard the ducks during night hours, so they went to his duck house to guard the ducks, Lw3/ Peram
Swaroopa, his daughter alone was in the house on the night of 20.6.2012.
He further deposed that on 21.6.2012 after completing his work at Kothapatnam village at about 5.00 AM, he left Kothapatnam and coming back to his house, that while he was returning from Kothapatnam, one auto driver met him on the way and told him that some police people were at his house and asked him to go and verify the matter, that immediately he engaged an auto and reached the house at about 8.00 AM on 21.6.2012, that when he reached the house he noticed people and police were present at the house of the deceased and he noticed the dead body of the deceased was lying on the floor, he also noticed a serious bleeding injury on the back of the head of the deceased and also another injury on the right chest of the deceased, that when he was weeping loudly, police dragged him outside of 10 SC 46 of 2014 the house of the deceased, that he suspected the hand of his brother in law
Dega Chengaiah in the murder of his son the deceased Ramanaiah and lodged Ex.P1 complaint with SHO, Vakadu police.
14.Pw2/Peram Swaroopa deposed that she belongs to Erukula-
Scheduled Tribe community, the deceased Ramanaiah is her elder brother.
Pw1 herself and others are residing in one house whereas the decased is residing in separate house with his family which is adjacent to their house.
Prior to 20.6.2012 at about 4 PM the deceased brought fish to her and asked her to prepare curry with the same and went away. On the same day at about 7.30 or 8 PM she took fish curry to the house of the decased and noticed the deceased was sleeping in the house. She woke up the deceased and asked him to take dinner with fish curry for which the decased told her that he would take dinner later and asked her to go to her house. So she came back to her house. On 20.6.2012 Pw1 had gone to Kottapatnam village to tell BURRAKATHA on the night Lw2 and Lw6 were gone to their duck yard to watch the ducks during night hours and so she is alone in the house. On the same day at about 9 or 9.30 PM again she went to the house of the decased to get back her tiffin box and noticed the deceased was going out of the house on his motor cycle by talking over a cellphone with some other.
When she verified the tiffin box in which she carried the fish curry for the deceased noticed the fish curry in it as it is and brought the box back to her house and she waited for deceased till 12 midnight and slept in her house.
She further deposed that on 21.6.2012 at about 6.30 AM
Lw5/Gunji Sreenivasulu, her neighbour came to her and asked her to give tester for which she told him that the tester was not with her and it would be available with the deceased, that Lw5/Sreenivasulu requested her to woke up the deceased to get tester from him, that she went to the house of the 11 SC 46 of 2014 deceased and searched for the tester thinking that the deceased was still sleeping in the house, that as she could not find out the tester, she tried to woke up the deceased by dragging his hand, that at that time
Lw5/Sreenivasulu was watching her by standing at the door of the house of the deceased, that while pulling the hand of the deceased, she could find that the hand of the deceased was very tight and suspected the death of the deceased, cried aloud and requested Lw5/Sreenivasulu to verify the matter, that Lw5/Sreenivasulu told her that the deceased was no more and went away, that meanwhile the neighbours gathered at the house of the deceased, that subsequently after 15 minutes two police constables came to the spot, that she noticed injuries on the back side head of the deceased and also on his chest, that after seeing the deceased, she could understand that he was killed by somebody.
15.Pw3/Peram Vijayasenamma deposed that she belongs to
Erukula-Scheduled Tribe community, that the deceased Ramanaiah is her husband, that prior to 20.6.2012 herself and her children were gone to her parents house at Pudiparthi of Venkatachalam mandal to spend summer vacations leaving the deceased alone in the house, that on 20.6.2012 during day time the deceased had a talk to her over his cell phone and invited her to the house as early as possible, that on 21.6.2012 at about 8.00 AM while she was at her parents house, Pw1 contacted her over a phone and informed her about the death of the deceased at their house, that immediately herself and her children came to their house and noticed the dead body of the deceased in their house, and also noticed bleeding injuries over the dead body of the deceased i.e. on back side of his head and chest.
12 SC 46 of 2014
16.Pw4/S. Rajesh deposed that on 20.6.2012 while he was in his duty as Home Guard at Kota Police station, the deceased was posted to attend night duty, he noticed the deceased was found absent in duty and so he tried to talk to the deceased over a phone at about 9.30 PM but the deceased did not lift his phone, that he reported the matter to the then
Inspector of Police, Vakadu, that on the next day morning, he came to know that the deceased died and he was told that somebody murdered the deceased. He went to the house of the deceased and saw his dead body, he noticed a bleeding injury on the back side of head of the deceased and also injuries on his chest, and also noticed throttling marks over the leg of the deceased.
17.Pw5/Nallabayi Ramanaiah deposed that the deceased is his brother in law by courtesy, that on the night of the death of the deceased at about 9.00 PM, he contacted the deceased over a phone about the issue to secure a seat to his son in the school, at that time the deceased told him that his wife went to her parents house without his consent as he pledged her gold ear studs with somebody and requested him to pursue the matter to get back her to his house, that on the next day morning, he came to know that the deceased was murdered by somebody.
18.Pw6/Ingilala Ramanaiah deposed that about 3 or 3 1/2 years back, when he was going to his fields to water the paddy crop at about 9.00 or 9.30 PM when he was going near the sluice of Kalluru tank, he noticed
A1, A2 and deceased were altercating with each other, and also noticed two other persons along with A1 and A2 , he also noticed one auto on the road near sluice of the tank, that though altercation was going on between A1, 13 SC 46 of 2014
A2 and deceased , he went to his fields to water his paddy crop, that on the next day morning, he came to know that the deceased was dead.
He further deposed that two months after the incident while he was proceeding to his land noticed police were moving at the sluice of
Kalluru tank, that while he was going to his fields, police called him and enquired about his knowledge over any incident at the sluice, that at that time he told the above said facts to the police and police recorded his statement.
19.Pw7/Kumbala Nagaraju deposed that on 20.6.2012 at about 9.20 PM at Kalluru tank he noticed one auto at the culvert and also noticed
A2 and 2 others near the said auto and discussing something, and he went to his village after answering calls of nature, that on the next day morning he came to know that the deceased was murdered, that two months after the death of the deceased, police were enquiring at Kalluru tank and at the same time, he stated to police about his seeing A2 and two others at the culvert of Kalluru tank on 20.6.2012 at about 9.20 PM and about his doubt over the links of A2 and others with the death of the deceased.
20.Pw8/Kudumula Ramanaiah deposed that on 20.6.2012 at about 10 PM himself and Lw15 Kolu Venkata Subbaiah together were coming from
Dugarajupatnam to their village via Vaddipalem, that after crossing
Vaddipalem on the way they noticed A2 came in their opposite direction on
Motor cycle along with A4, that the deceased Ramanaiah was sitting in between A2 and A4 on the said motor cycle, that after crossing the motor cycle of A2, they also noticed A1 and A3 were coming on foot in their opposite direction, that A1 and A3 were proceeding towards Vaddipalem village at that time, that the motor cycle of A2 along with deceased and A4 also went towards Vaddipalem village, that the deceased was found like a 14 SC 46 of 2014 man who was in unconscious stage, that they thought that he might have consumed alcohol and he was like that. He further deposed that on the next day morning they came to know that the deceased was murdered, that due to fear, he did not disclose the above said event to police for about 2 months, but they disclosed the said event to their friends, that after two months, police came to him and examined him and he narrated the above said event to police.
21.Pw9/Chinthapudi Lingaiah deposed that about 4 years back on one day, police took him to a well in Kodivaka Vaddipalem village and the
Inspector of Police, Vakadu asked him to search the well and find out whether there is any iron rod in the well, so he went into the well and searched the bottom of the well in the water and noticed M.O.1/ iron rod and brought out the same and handed over the same to Inspector of Police,
Vakadu and at that time A1 was with the Inspector of Police.
22.Pw10/Ponguru Krishna Mohan Reddy, the then VAO of Konduru
Cluster deposed that on 21.6.2012 at 10.30 AM, inquest was conducted at the house of Mottaiah on the dead body of Peram Ramanaiah son of Mottaiah in his presence and in the presence of one Vakati Balakrishna Reddy and
Pillametla Jayamma, that the Inspector of Police also present at the time of inquest, they observed the inquest and drafted the inquest report by one of the constable of Kota police station, they have observed the injuries on the dead body of the deceased on the back side of his head and press injury on the neck, they have also observed the injuries on the chest and hand of the deceased and they unanimously opined that the deceased died due to unnatural death and they along with Inspector of Police signed on Ex.P2 15 SC 46 of 2014 inquest report. He further deposed that on the same day at 2.00 PM in his presence and in the presence of V. Balakrishna Reddy, the Inspector of
Police observed the scene of offence and got drafted Ex.P3 scene observation report and at that time police seized one money purse containing the driving licence, ATM card, one Manippuram Finance receipt for Rs.74,000/-, one I.D.
card, one Open University Hall ticket, one Gutka packet, one Kainee packet and two photographs of the deceased in the shirt pocket, they also found one
Rs.100/- note and some change, that police also seized the blood stained and controlled earth from the scene and also got photographed the scene, himself, V. Balakrishna Reddy along with Inspector of Police signed on Ex.P3.
23.Pw11/Dr.M. Chandrakala, the then Civil Assistant Surgeon,
Vakadu deposed that as per the requisition of Inspector of Police, Vakadu, at 3.00 PM she conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and found (1) Black contusion over the throat with hands, (2) Contusion over the chest left side 6x6 cm, black in colour weapon not known, (3) Cut injury on the scalp 2 x 1cm right side the scalp weapon not known, (4) Cut injury on the scalp 2 x 2 cm occipital region weapon not known, that the other internal organs are intact except hyoid bone fracture present, she issued Ex.P4 post mortem certificate opining that the approximate time of death is 15 to 16 hours before concluding of post mortem examination, the cause of death is asphyxia due to throttling, that the post mortem is concluded at 4 PM and the injuries 2 to 4 in Ex.P4 can be possible with an iron rod like M.O.1.
24.PW.12/Kadiveti Janardhan, VRO of Kurugonda village deposed that on 28.8.2012 at about 11.30 AM himself and Sangeetham Bhaskar and
Inspector of Police on credible information about accused, they all went to 16 SC 46 of 2014
Kalluru cross road on police jeep along with the staff and found one auto towards Dugarajupatnam road and one person standing outside the auto and talking to 3 persons who were sitting in the auto, that on seeing the police jeep they tried to ran away from the auto towards Kalluru side, then the police chased and caught hold of the persons and enquired them, they revealed their identity as A1 to A4 and in their presence, accused confessed about the offence and reduced the same into writing, that on the confession of A1, police seized one auto from the possession of A1 which was used in commission of offence, M.O.2 the auto number is AP 26 TA 7891, that A1 also handed over M.O.3 shirt of the deceased Ramanaiah which was kept in the canal pipe (Thoomu), that the auto and shirt were seized under the cover of Ex.P5 mahazarnama.
He further deposed that in pursuance of confession of A1, they have proceeded to Kodivaka Vaddipalem and produced M.O.1 one iron pipe which was kept in a well , then the Inspector of Police called Pw9
Chinthalapudi Lingaiah and he went and brought the iron rod from the well and police seized the same under cover of Ex.P6 mahazarnama duly signed by himself and another mediator along with Inspector of Police, that the
Inspector of Police arrested all the accused.
25.Pw13/E. Mala Kondaiah, the then Sub Inspector of Police,
Vakadu deposed that on 21.6.2012 at 9 AM while he was present in police station, Pw1 came to police station and presented Ex.P1 report, then he registered the same as a case in crime No.36 of 2012 u/s.302 IPC and submitted Ex.P7 original FIR to the court and copies to all the concerned and he informed the same to his superior officer Inspector of Police who took up further investigation.
17 SC 46 of 2014
26.Pw14/Y. Srinivasarao, the then Inspector of Police, Vakadu deposed that on 21.6.2012 at about 9.45 AM, he received copy of express
FIR in crime No.36 of 2012 u/s.302 IPC and took up investigation in this case, he visited the scene of offence situated at Vaddipalem village and observed the scene in the presence of Pw10 and another and got photographed the scene and also drafted the scene observation report/Ex.P3, he also prepared rough sketch of the house of the deceased where the dead body was found, Ex.P8 is the rough sketch of the scene of offence, he got photographed the scene with the help of office camera, he seized the blood stained cement flooring and blood stained earth under the cover of Ex.P3 and sent the seized material objects to RFSL, Guntur through
Sub Divisional Police Officer, Gudur.
He further deposed that he also held inquest over the dead body of the deceased Ramanaiah on the same day in the presence of
Panchayatdars Pw10 and 2 others and got drafted inquest report/Ex.P2, that during the inquest, he secured the presence of Pw1, Lw2/Mangamma, Pw2,
Pw3, Lw5/G. Sreenivasulu, Lw6/Peram Durgaiah, Lw7/Challa Chandraiah,
Pw4 and Lw9/Byna Yesaiah examined them and recorded their statements, that after the inquest, he sent the dead body for post mortem examination to
Primary Health centre, Vakadu.
He further deposed that on 31.7.2012 he secured the presence of Pw5, Lw11/N. Sugunamma examined them and recorded their statements, that on 10.8.2012 he secured Lw12/Ambati Venkaiah and examined him and recorded his statement, he made efforts to detect the case with the help of call details records of the deceased, that the names of Chengaiah and
Atchaiah were selected for suspects list in this case as there is no evidence against them.
18 SC 46 of 2014
He further deposed that on 23.8.2012 he secured Pw6 and Pw7, examined them and recorded their statements. He further deposed that on 28.8.2012 he secured the presence of Pw12 and S. Bhaskar along with his staff visited Kalluru cross roads on Gudur - Dugarajupatnam main road at about 11.30 AM he found A1 to A4 with an auto by the side of the road, that on seeing the police party accused tried to abscond from the place, then he caught hold of the accused with the assistance of his staff and in the presence of mediators, he enquired them and accused confessed the offence, there he got recorded confession statement of accused under Ex.P5, that A1 led the police party to the culvert situated at about 250 meters from the cross roads and produced a white colour black stripes full hands shirt stained with blood and mud which is marked as M.O.3, that he got incorporated the seizure of material objects in Ex.P5, that he seized auto/MO.2 bearing
No.AP26TA 7891, that he prepared Ex.P9 rough sketch of the scene of offence. He further deposed that on the same day accused led the police party to the abandoned well to the outskirts of Vaddipalem village with the assistance of Pw9, that he seized the iron rod used at the commission of offence, that he seized the same under the cover of seizure mahazarnama/Ex.P6, that he brought the accused to police station and sent to judicial custody along with remand report, that he added section 3(2)(v) of SC & ST (PoA) Act, 1989 in this case, that the blood stained material objects shirt and iron rod sent to RFSL, Guntur for chemical analysis, that
Pw13 filed Ex.P10 alteration memo, that the further investigation is taken up by K. Suresh Kumar, the then Sub Divisional Police Officer, Gudur.
27.Pw15/K. Suresh Kumar, the then Sub Divisional Police Officer,
Gudur deposed that he received Ex.P11 authorization proceedings from 19 SC 46 of 2014
Superintendent of Police, Nellore, took up further investigation, received CD file from Pw14 after adding section of law u/s.3(2)(v) of SC & ST (PoA) Act, 1989, verified the CD file and investigation conducted by Pw14, found it on correct lines. Then he visited the house of the deceased and examined the house of the deceased, secured Pw1 to Pw9, examined them and they categorically stated before him as stated before Pw14, then he visited the scene of offence situated near culvert at Kalluru canal and Muttembaka road along with Sub Inspector of Police, Vakadu Police station, examined it , received Ex.P12 RFSL report, Guntur and Ex.P13/another RFSL report and forwarded the same to Inspector of Police, Vakadu circle, that subsequently he received caste certificates of deceased Peram Ramanaiah, Pw1 and all the accused under Exs.P14 to P19, respectively, that later he was transferred and later after receipt of Ex.P20 authorization and Ex.P21 memorandum from Superintendent of Police, Nellore and after completion of investigation, his successor Smt.Cowdeswari, filed charge sheet against the accused .
28.The prosecution has examined Pw.1 to Pw.8 to prove the guilt of the accused. Pw1 is no other than the father of the deceased and he was not aware of the incident as he is not present in the village on the date of alleged incident. On the next day of the alleged incident i.e. 21.06.2012 after completing his work at Kottapatnam village at about 5 A.M. he left
Kottapatnam and coming back to his house while returning one auto driver met him on the way and told that some police people were at their house and asked him to go and verify the matter. Immediately he came to the house and reached the house at 8 AM on that day. It is further deposed by
Pw1 that he has got suspicion over Dega Chengaiah and lodged a report against the said Dega Chengaiah with S.H.O., Vakadu police station. He 20 SC 46 of 2014 categorically deposed in the cross examination that during the time of the incident due to summer vacations the wife of the deceased gone to her parents house along with her children leaving the deceased alone in the house. Moreover it is denied by him that as on the date of this incident, his brother in law Chengaiah and his son Atchaiah were residing at his village.
Ex.P1 report submitted by Pw1 clearly discloses that due to the disputes between Dega Chennaiah and their family, he gave a report that both Dega
Chengaiah and Atchaiah murdered his son and there are no other enemies to his son, except those two persons. In the evidence also, it is clearly deposed that he gave report against Dega Chengaiah as he suspected in the murder of his son the deceased Ramanaiah.
29.In the present case on hand, the time is verymuch essential to prove the guilt of the accused when the sister of the deceased, Pw2 has seen the deceased alive at 9.30 P.M. and he went outside of the house on his motor cycle by talking over a cellphone with some other at that time, she waited upto 12.00 midnight for the deceased, but the deceased did not turn up and she slept in her house. On the next day morning when Gunji
Srinivasulu came to her house at 6.30 A.M. for tester for which she told him that the tester was not with her and it is within the house of the deceased and they went to the house of the deceased to get the tester, at that time she observed that the deceased in the house as she could find the hand of the deceased was very tight and suspected the death of the deceased, she cried loudly. Then the said Srinivasulu came and told her that the deceased was no more and went away. Later the neighbours are gathered at the house of the deceased. In her cross examination, the material contradiction of
Ex.D1 is marked and it is also clearly deposed by her that prior to 20.6.2012, the wife of the accused picked up a quarrel with the deceased on the ground 21 SC 46 of 2014 that the deceased pledged her ear-studs and went away to her parents house. Pw3 is the wife of the deceased. She categorically deposed that prior to the incident, there were some small ill-feelings between herself and the deceased as deceased pledged her ear-studs without her consent. This aspect is corroborating with the evidence of Pw2 that the wife of the deceased left the house along with her children as she had quarrelled with her husband. In the cross examination she categorically denied as in Ex.D2.
She is also categorically stated in Ex.D2 that the suspects Dega Atchaiah and
Dega Chennaiah are the persons to do away the life of her husband as there are disputes between Dega Chenchaiah and Dega Atchaiah with her husband and father in law. Pw4 came to know about the murder of the deceased on the next day morning and he also talked to the deceased at about 9.30 P.M.
on 20.6.2012. Pw5 evidence is also much important as on the night of the death of the deceased at 9.00 P.M. he contacted the deceased over a phone over the issue to secure a seat to his son in the school.
30.The evidence of Pw6 is a projected witness and chance witness.
He categorically deposed that at 9 or 9.30 PM while he was going to his fields to water the paddy crop, he noticed A1 and A2 and the deceased were altercating with other and this witness. The said information was revealed to the police only after two months after the incident when he was proceeding to his land, noticed the police were moving at sluice of Kalluru tank.
According to his evidence, he saw the deceased at 9 or 9.30 P.M. at sluice of
Kalluru tank but according to the evidence of Pw3 and Pw4 that they have talked to the deceased at 9.30 P.M. and Pw.2 observed the deceased was present at the house till 9.30 P.M. and at 9.30 P.M. while he was going on his motor cycle, he is talking to somebody in the cellphone. Pw6 did not reveal the fact that he saw A1 and A2 on the date of alleged incident till the police 22 SC 46 of 2014 enquired him. Though there was an altercation was going on in between the deceased, A1 and A2, he did not intervene. Moreover he know about the death of the deceased on the next day morning and went and see the deceased at about 10.30 A.M. and the police also present at that time near the dead body but he did not inform to the police at that time nor even he did not tell the above said facts to the relatives of the deceased. Only when police examined him, he tell the names of A1 and A2 and the altercation with the deceased.
31.Pw.7 deposed that he noticed one auto at culvert at 9.25 P.M.
along with A2 and 2 others and they are discussing something. This fact is not informed to anybody till the police examined him after two months after the death of the deceased after police enquiring at Kalluru tank. This witness also did not tell about seeing of A2 and two others at Kalluru tank on the night of 20.6.2012 to his shop owner Vasu and he also did not enquire with
A2 as to why he was present at Kalluru tank. Further in the cross examination, it is admitted by him that Pw1 and Pw4 accompanied him on the date of examination before the court and they were present. It is also suggested to him that he was speaking falsehood at the instance of Pw1 and
Pw4. The other evidence on record is Pw8. On 20.6.2012 at about 10 P.M.
while himself and Venkatasubbaiah were coming from Dugarajupatnam to their village via Vaddipalem, after crossing Vaddipalem on the way they noticed A2 came in their opposite direction on motor cycle along with A4. The deceased Ramanaiah was sitting in between A2 and A4 on the said motor cycle. After crossing the motor cycle of A2, they have also noticed A1 and A3 were coming on foot in their opposite direction. He was at length cross examined by the defence counsel and in the cross examination he categorically deposed that while going from Dugarajupatnam to Vakadu, they 23 SC 46 of 2014 need not cross the village Vaddipalem. It is also deposed by him that they have not questioned A2 while crossing them along with the deceased and A4 thinking that they might have in drunken state. There is no evidence how he know about the deceased and he is also stranger to A1 to A4 and the deceased. The time is also to take into consideration and the prosecution is projected to connect the link but it is an admitted fact that they reached
Dugarajupatnam at 7.00 P.M. and they have no need to cross the village of
Vaddipalem while going to Vakadu, but the prosecution has mainly stressed about the evidence of Pw8 to connect the link between the prosecution case and the accused.
32.It is the essential function of the court to appreciate the evidence adduced before it, the evidence can not be weighed in golden scales it shall have to be appreciated with reference to the probabilities. Having regard to the scheme of the Act and its division into three essential parts, the court shall proceed in a methodical manner to appreciate evidence, so that the element of arbitrariness can be excluded and uniformity in all cases is achieved. For that the court shall proceed firstly to see whether the evidence sought to be adduced is relevant and the relevant evidence is admissible and that evidence is proved.
33.In the case of oral evidence the court has to see further the witnesses who want to depose before the court on oath are competent to give evidence. The relevancy and competency of the witness can be seen from the various provisions of the Act.
34.Witnesses as BENTHAM said are the eyes and ears of Justice.
Hence the importance and primacy of the quality of trial process.
Eyewitnesses account would require a careful independent assessment and evaluation for their credibility which should not adversely pre-judged making 24 SC 46 of 2014 any otherwise evidence, including medical evidence as the sole touch stone for the test of credibility.
35.It is observed in Govinda Vs. Champa Bai, AIR 1965 SC 354 in order to judge the credibility of a witness , the court is not confined only to the way in which the witnesses have deposed or to the demeanour, but it is open to look into the surrounding circumstances as well as the probabilities.
36. In the present case on hand, the witnesses who were projected by the prosecution are planted and chance witnesses. Moreover the so called
Pw6, Pw7 and Pw8 did not disclose to anybody about they are seeing the accused and deceased at the relevant places till the police examined them after two months after the incident. The evidence of Pw9 is also not trust- worthy though he identified A1 present on the date when he picked up M.O.1 from the abandoned well that A1 was along with Inspector of Police that how far the evidence of Pw9 is to be acceptable and for the first time he know A1 and identified him in the court hall after long lapse of four years. Pw.9 is not the resident of accused village that he is a resident of Kota. So there is no chance for him to identify A1 along with the Inspector of Police on the date of examination before the court.
37. Whereas the prosecution filed case against these four accused as per the confession of the accused in the presence of Pw12 who is the VRO of Kurugonda village. He has categorically deposed that at the time of arrest of A1 to A4, he was present and seized the auto and one white black colour checks full hands shirt on the confession of the accused. Ex.P5 is the marked portion of mahazar nama dated 28.8.2012. It is further deposed by him that in pursuance of confession made by A1, they have also seized the iron rod
M.O.1 from the abandoned well with the help of Pw.9. In the cross 25 SC 46 of 2014 examination, he has categorically deposed that one of the constable drafted
Exs.P5 and P6. There is no endorsement of the scribe on Exs.P5 and P6. The seizure of M.O.2 is also doubtful as there are no identification slips affixed to
M.O.2 auto with their signatures. The police did not obtain their signatures on identification slips nor sealed M.O.3 in a cover immediately after seizure.
The Investigating Officer Pw.14 has categorically deposed about arrest and seizure of the property.
38.As per the report received by Pw.14, the persons who are present in the court hall are not the accused. The persons whose names are mentioned in the report is Chengaiah and Atchaiah, residents of Tirumuru village. The report contains that the deceased was with the above said
Chengaiah and Atchaiah till the evening and moving along with the deceased. It is also true that in the report it is clearly mentioned that there are previous grudges to the family members of deceased Chengaiah and
Atchaiah. It is further admitted that Ex.P 1 report given by the father of the deceased Ramanaiah. At the time of inquest he examined the blood relatives and even according to their statements, the suspicion is over Chengaiah and
Atchaiah and on 21.6.2012 he conducted the inquest till 1.30 PM by then there is no information about A1 to A4. They were found at Dugarajupatnam road. There is a distance of 2 or 3 kilometers from the house of the deceased and Dega Chengaiah and Atchaiah. But the accused are residents of
Vaddipalem village and the deceased also resident of Vaddipalem village.
Pw14 secured the call data records of the deceased on 23.7.2012 from I.T.
Core Team from the office of Superintendnet of Police, but he did not produce the said record before the court. The witness further deposed that he did not visit the village of Chengaiah and Atchaiah and tried to secure any witnesses to record their statements and he never brought them to police 26 SC 46 of 2014 station nor examined them but he verified the antecedents of Chengaiah and
Atchaiah. He examined one Ambati Venkaiah of Dugarajupatnam and basing on call details of Atchaiah and Chengaiah, he came to conclusion that they are not involved in this crime. Here this witness did not produce the call list of Atchaiah and Chengaiah though it is one of the prime evidence is the call list of the deceased to fix up the accusation against the accused. Pw14 nor even seized the cellphone of the deceased. It is an admitted fact that Ambati
Venkaiah, deceased Chengaiah and Atchaiah are inter-related to each other.
39.Regarding the seizure of M.O.3, it was taken from the culvert situated to the East of the road but he did not seize or found the blood stained earth while preparing Ex.P9 and the house of the deceased is at a distance of 3 kilometers from the scene of offence shown in Ex.P9. By the time he visited the house of the deceased, the dead body was found inside the house and there are several houses surrounding to the house of the deceased. But the surrounding inmates of the houses to the scene of offence are not examined by the Investigating Officer.
40.Pw10 is the VRO and he also admitted in the cross examination that in column No.15 of the inquest report, the panchayatdars are opined that the deceased died due to beatings with deadly weapons by Dega
Chengaiah and his sons.
41.Pw11 is the Medical Officer and he was not cross examined and it is an admitted fact that the injuries 2 to 4 can be possible with an iron rod like M.O.1 shown to him.
42.The police also arrested the accused after two months of the alleged incident and no motive is attributed against the accused for causing the murder of the accused and Pw.12 is not a truthful witness, his evidence is doubtful as the arrest and seizure of the material objects.
27 SC 46 of 2014
43.Pw.14 is the first Investigating Officer. He failed to produce the call data before the court and the circumstances are very doubtful to fix up the accused in this crime. Though Pw15 is the second Investigating Officer, he also did not came to a conclusion that how he has come to a conclusion that the accused are committed the offence. The investigation of Pw14 and
Pw15 is perfunctory investigation, they have not come to a just conclusion to fix A1 to A4 in this crime and it is also not disclosed how
Dega Chengaiah and Atchaiah are not the suspected accused in this crime.
There is no link between the prosecution case and the accusation alleged against the accused. Therefore, the benefit of doubt must goes to the accused. They are liable for acquittal.
44. Therefore, in the above stated circumstances, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable u/Secs.3(2)(v) of S.Cs and S.Ts (PoA)
Act, 1989, u/s.302 and 201 IPC, beyond all reasonable doubts and hence the accused are entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, the point is answered.
45.In the result, A1 to A4 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 3(2)(v) of S.Cs and S.Ts (PoA) Act, 1989, u/s.302 and 201 IPC and accordingly, they are acquitted of the same under Sec.235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months. M.Os. 1 to 3 and the other unmarked case property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.
Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court, on this the 23rd day of November, 2017.
Spl. Judge for trial of offences under S.Cs and S.Ts (PoA) Act- cum-V Additional Sessions Judge, Nellore 28 SC 46 of 2014
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For Prosecution: P.W.1: P. Muthaiah, defacto complainant P.W.2:P. Swarupa P.W.3:P. Vijayasenamma P.W.4:S. Rajesh P.W.5:N. Ramanaiah P.W.6:I. Ramanaiah P.W.7:K. Nagaraju P.W.8:K. Ramanaiah P.W.9:Ch. Lingaiah P.W.10:P. Krishnamohan Reddy, the then VRO P.W.11:Dr.M. Chandrakala, the then CAS P.W.12:K. Janardhan, the then VRO P.W.13:E. Malakondaiah, the then SI of Police P.W.14:Y. Srinivasa Rao, the then Inspector of Police P.W.15:K. Suresh Kumar, the then SDPO
For Defence:NONE
DOCUMENTS MARKED
For prosecution: Ex.P1:Complaint of P.W.1 to police dated 21.6.2012 Ex.P.2 :Inquest report dated 21.6.2012 Ex.P.3:Scene observation report dated 21.6.2012 Ex.P.4:Post mortem certificate dated 21.6.2012 Ex.P5:Marked portion of Mahazar nama dated 28.8.2012 at 11.30 AM Ex.P6:Seizure mahazar nama dated 28.8.2012 at 4 PM Ex.P7:FIR Ex.P8:Rough sketch Ex.P9:Another Rough sketch Ex.P10:Altered memo dated 10.10.2012 Ex.P11:Authorisation proceedings dated 10.10.2012 Ex.P12:RFSL report dated 30.11.2012 Ex.P13:RFSL report dated 1.10.2012 Ex.P14 :Caste certificate of deceased Ex.P15:Caste certificate of Pw1 Ex.P16:Caste certificate of A1 Ex.P17:Caste certificate of A2 Ex.P18:Caste certificate of A3 Ex.P19:Caste certificate of A4 Ex.P20:Authorisation proceedings dated 2.5.2013 Ex.P21:Memorandum dated 15.6.2013
For Defence:
Ex.D1:Marked portion in the 161 CrPC statement of Pw2 Ex.D2:Marked portion in the 161 CrPC statement of Pw3 Ex.D3:Marked portion in the 161 CrPC statement of Pw3 29 SC 46 of 2014
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED
M.O.1:Iron rod M.O.2:Auto bearing registration No.AP26TA7891 M.O.3:White colour with black colour full hands shirt
Spl. Judge for trial of offences under S.Cs and S.Ts (PoA) Act- cum-V Additional Sessions Judge, Nellore