1S.C.No.02 of 2021
IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF
CRIMINAL CASES RELATING TO ELECTED M.Ps. AND M.L.As. OF THE STATE OF TELANGANA :: HYDERABAD
Present: K.Jayakumar, Special Sessions Judge for the trial of Criminal Cases relating to elected M.Ps. and M.L.As. of the State of Telangana, Hyderabad. Hyderabad.
Friday, the 13th day of May, 2022
SESSIONS CASE No.02 OF 2021
(P.R.C.No.28 of 2014) (Old S.C.No.326 of 2017)
Received from III Additional District and Sessions Court, Gadwal
Crime Number and Police Station106 of 2013, Devarakadra P.S.
Name & description of the accusedA.1 Marati Chandra Shekar @ Yerra Shekar S/o Venugopal, Aged about 59 Years, Occ: MLA of Jedcherla Assembly Constituency, R/o: H.No. 1-2-47/C, Subhashnagar, Mahabubnagar, now at A1/5, MLA Quarters, Erramanjil, Hyderabad and Plot No.24, Isaq Colony, Secunderabad. Native of Pedda Chintha Kunta village of Dhanwada mandal of Mahabubnagar District.
A.2 Thummala Thimmanna S/o Chennappa, Aged about 69 Years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Pedda Chinthakunta Village of Dhanwada mandal.
A.3 Dandu Narasimulu @ Chakali Narasimulu S/o Venkanna, aged about 61 Years, Occ: Private Job, R/o Pedda Chintha Kunta village of Dhanwada Mandal, now residing at Rajendra Nagar, Mahabubnagar Town.
A.4ThummalaRamuluS/o Thimmanna, Aged about 44 Years, Occ: Postman, R/o Pedda Chintakunta Village of Dhanwada mandal. A.5 Tappa Praveen Kumar @ Raju S/o Ushanna, Aged about 45 Years, Occ: MLA P.A., r/o H.No. 1-7-185/A9, New 2S.C.No.02 of 2021
Gunj, Mahabubnagar Town.
A.6 Sangireddy Surya Mohan Reddy S/ o Thimma Reddy, Aged about 43 Years, Occ: Business, R/o Marikal Village of Dhanwada Mandal.
A.7 Motor venkat @ Venkatramulu S/o Venkatramulu, Aged about 54 Years, Occ: Old P.A. to MLA R/o H.No. 6-56, Shesadri Nagar, Mahabubnagar Town.
A.8 Marati Bhavani W/o Chandra Shekar, Aged about 50 Years, Occ: House wife, R/o H.No. 1-2-47/C, Subashnagar, Mahabubnagar, now at A1/5, MLA Quarters, Erramanjil, Hyderabad.
A.9 Bonavath Ramesh Babu S/o Mangya Naik, Aged about 34 Years, Occ: MLA Driver, R/o Venkatapuram Village of Musnoor mandal, Krishn a District.
Name and description of the The State represented by the Circle complainantInspectorofPolice,Atmakur, Mahaboobnagar District.
Prosecution conducted bySri. G.Narayana, Special Public Prosecutor.
Accused defended bySri. V.Surender Rao, Counsel for Accused Nos.1 to 7 Sri. B. Konda Reddy, Counsel for Accused Nos.8 and 9
Offence chargedUnder Secs.120-B & 148 of IPC against A.1 to A.9; Secs.302 of IPC and 27 of the Arms Act against A.1, Sec.364 r/w 149 of IPC against A.2 & A.3, Sec.341 r/w 149 against A.2 to A.4, Sec.302 r/w 149 of IPC against A.2 to A.7, Sec. 109 of IPC against A.8 and Sec.201 of IPC against A.9 Plea of accusedNot guilty
Finding of the courtFound not guilty
ResultA.1 to A.9 are found not guilty for the charges under Secs. 120-B and 148 of I.P.C.; A.2 and A.3 are found not guilty for the charge under Sec. 364 r/ w 149 of I.P.C.; A.2 to A.4 are found not guilty for the charge under Sec. 341 r/w 149 of I.P.C.; A.1 is found not 3S.C.No.02 of 2021 guilty for the charges under Sec. 302 of I.P.C. and Sec. 27 of the Arms Act; A.2 to A.7 are found not guilty for the charge under Sec. 302 r/w 149 of I.P.C.; A.8 is found not guilty for the charge under Sec. 109 of I.P.C. and A.9 is found not guilty for the charge under Sec. 201 of I.P.C. Accordingly, they are acquitted under Sec. 235 (1) of Cr.P.C. for the said charges. MO.1-Car bearing No. AP 28 BW 2013 which was given to S.Chandra Mohan Reddy (PW.15) to interim custody shall continue after appeal time is over. MO.6-Car bearing No. AP 09 CN 5787 which was given to Marati Chandra Shekar (A.1) to interim custody shall continue after appeal time is over. MO.10-pistol, MO.3 and MO.5- cartridges (live, retrieved and used) shall be handed over to the State Armoury after appeal time over. MO.2, MO.7, MO.8, MO.9, MO.11 to MO.14-mobile phones and MO.4-clothes shall be destroyed after appeal time is over. The bonds and bail bonds of all accused shall be in force for 6 months as provided under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.
J U D G M E N T
Circle Inspector of Police, Atmakur, Mahabubnagar District, laid a charge sheet against Marati Chandra Shekar @ Yerra Shekar, M.L.A., Jedcherla
Assembly Constituency (A.1) and 8 others for the offences punishable under
Secs. 147, 148, 302, 341, 364, 120-B, 109, 201 r/w 149 of the Indian Penal
Code, for short ‘I.P.C.’ and Sec.27 of Arms Act, for short ‘the Act’ in Crime
No.106 of 2013 of Devarakhadra P.S. alleging that Marati Chandra Shekar (A.1) and the deceased, Marati Jagan Mohan are the consanguine brothers,
M.Bhavani (A.8) is the wife, T.Thimmanna (A.2), D.Narasimulu (A.3), T.Ramulu (A.4), T.Praveen Kumar (A.5), S.Surya Mohan Reddy (A.6) and M.Venkat @ 4S.C.No.02 of 2021
Venkatramulu (A.7) are the henchmen/followers, B.Ramesh Babu (A.9) is the driver of A.1. Marati Ashritha (PW.11) and M.Bhavani (A.8), wives of deceased and A.1 respectively filed nominations for Sarpanch of
Peddachintakunta Grampanchayath on 13-07-2013. A.1 wanted to get his wife (A.8) elected as Sarpanch unanimously, as such, he asked his deceased brother to get the withdrawal of the nomination of his wife (PW.11) for which he did not agree. Consequently, A.1 threatened the deceased with dire consequences to do away him and his family members. As per his plan, A.1 got foisted a false case against his deceased brother, his wife Ashritha (PW.11) and others under SC/ST (POA) Act vide Crime No. 88 of 2013 through his man, P.Ramesh (PW.12) in Marikal P.S. When the deceased approached his brother (A.1) and asked him for registering the case against him and his wife, A.1 told him that he would get SC/ST (POA) Act case compromised with the said PW.12, provided his wife agreed to withdraw her nomination, for which the deceased agreed. It is further alleged that on 17-07-2013, the deceased obtained the signatures of his wife (PW.11) to withdraw her nomination and proceeded to
Mahabubnagar along with K.Rajender Prasad (PW.6) and B.Kishore Rajashekar (LW.6) in a car bearing No. AP 29 AG 9220 driven by N.Ramesh (PW.10), to file them at Pusalapadu cluster on behalf of his wife (PW.11). They reached
I-Town P.S., Mahabubnagar at around 02.45 p.m. where the deceased met
T.Thimmanna (A.2) and D.Narasimulu (A.3) and asked them to give compromise letter of SC/ST case first then only he would file withdrawal papers as per their earlier understanding, for which A.2 and A.3 contacted A.1 over mobile phone, thereafter, A.2 and A.3 forcibly took the deceased in the same car towards Pusalapadu side for withdrawal of nomination of his wife.
At about 03.45 p.m. when car crossed the Devarakadra village, A.2 received a 5S.C.No.02 of 2021 phone call, got stopped the car at the electrical sub-station where A.2 and A.3 spoke to A.1 over phone for 5 to 10 minutes; and that A.1 to A.7 hatched a plan to do away with the life of deceased with the instigation of A.8.
02.It is further alleged that according to their plan, A.2 and A.3 took the deceased in the same car and stopped the same in front of Saiprasad Udipi
Hotel, Deverakadra, at around 04.00 p.m. and told the deceased that A.1 is coming to discuss with him. In between 04.15 and 04.25 p.m., A.1 came there in his car bearing No. AP 9 CN 5787 along with his driver (A.9). In the meanwhile, A.5 to A7 also came there in another car and joined A.1; and that
A.1 to A.7 rounded the deceased, put him into fear and created panic situation. A.1 abused the deceased for not withdrawing the nomination of his wife and fired at him with his pistol and caused his instantaneous death.
03.On the strength of the report given by G.Sathyanarayana (PW.1),
VRO, Devarakadra, B.Narsimulu, S.I. of Police, Devarakadra P.S. (PW.31) registered a case in Crime No. 106 of 2013 under Sec. 302 of I.P.C. and Sec.
27 of the Arms Act, 1959 against unknown offenders and issued F.I.Rs. to all the concerned under Ex.P.39, while G.Govardhanagiri, C.I. of Police, Atmakur
Circle (PW.32) took up investigation in this case, examined and recorded the statements of PW.1 and G.Sailu (PW.5), observed the scene of offence in the presence of C.Pentaiah (PW.17) and C.Balaiah (PW.18), recovered a mobile phone (MO.2), two live rounds of cartridges (MO.3), collected blood stained and its control earth under a panchanama (Ex.P.40), drawn rough sketch of scene of offence (Ex.P.41), got photographed the scene of offence including the dead body through K.Mohan (PW.16), got shifted the dead body of Jagan
Mohan to Government Hospital, Mahabubnagar, examined and recorded the 6S.C.No.02 of 2021 statements of M.Asrita (PW.11), M.Raju (LW.10), D.Sridevi (LW.11), G.Vijaya
Lakshmi (LW.12), R.Narsimulu (PW.7), held inquest over the dead body of
Jagan Mohan in the presence of P.Anjaneyulu (PW.19) and B.Madhu (PW.29) under Ex.P.43, issued requisition to the Medical Officer to conduct postmortem examination where Dr.P.Narasimha Kumar (LW.36 - since died) held autopsy over the dead body of deceased Jagan Mohan, issued postmortem examination report (PME) opining the cause of death of M.Jagan Mohan is due to fire arm injuries; and that he (PW.31) received wearing apparels (MO.4) of the deceased and two bullets (MO.5) retrieved from the dead body and that after inquest, he examined and recorded the statements of remaining witnesses on different dates; and that on 26-08-2013, his colleague V.Narasimulu (PW.31) apprehended A.2 to A.4 and A.9; and produced before PW.32 who recorded their confessional statements, separately, in the presence of panch witnesses,
K.Venkateshwar Reddy (PW.20) and A.Ramreddy (PW.22) and seized their mobiles phones (MO.7 to MO.9) and Scorpio Car bearing No. AP 9 CN 5787 (MO.6); and that on the same day, at around 01.00 p.m., he arrested A.1 and recorded his confessional statement in the presence of Khaled Bin Mohd Iqbal (PW.23) and Mohd. Tayyab (PW.21) and seized pistol (MO.10) from him under a cover of panchanama and sent A.1 to A.4 and A.9 for remand; and that after obtaining the custody (Police) of A.1, on 02-09-2013, PW.32 recorded the confessional statement of Accused No.1 in the presence of Sathanna (PW.26) and P.Thimmaiah (PW.27) and seized Arms License (Ex.P.44), cell phone (MO.11) under cover of a panchanama (Ex.P.45); and that he arrested A.5 to
A.7 at Police Station when they surrendered before him on 31-08-2013 and recorded their confessional statements, separately in the presence of
B.Venkataramulu (PW.24) and B.Venkateshwar Reddy (PW.25) and seized their 7S.C.No.02 of 2021 mobile phones (MO.12 to MO.14); and that he seized the MO.1-car from
S.Chandra Mohan Reddy (PW.15) in the presence of K.Bhanu Chander (PW.28) and P. Nagaraju (PW.30); and that after receipt of opinions from the FSL and
Postmortem Examination report from the doctor, the said PW.32 filed charge sheet.
04.The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Atmakur took cognizance for the offences under Secs. 147, 148, 341, 364, 302, 120-B, 109, 201 r/w 149 of I.P.C. and numbered the charge sheet as PRC No. 28 of 2014.
On appearance of accused, the learned committal court supplied them with copies of documents as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C. Since the main offence under Sec. 302 of I.P.C. is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class Magistrate has committed the case to the Sessions Division, Mahabubnagar, which in turn numbered it as
S.C.No.326 of 2017 and made over the same to the III Addl. Sessions Judge’s
Court at Gadwal for trial. Consequent upon the establishment of this court for trial of criminal cases relating to M.Ps. and M.L.As. of the State of Telangana and one of the accused is an MLA, this case was transferred to this court for trial. This court, in turn, renumbered the said S.C.No.326 of 2017 as
S.C.No.02 of 2021.
05.On appearance of the accused, this court, after hearing the Special
Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel, charges under Secs. 120-B & 148 of
IPC against A.1 to A.9; Secs.302 of IPC and 27 of the Arms Act against A.1, Sec.364 r/w 149 of IPC against A.2 & A.3, Sec.341 r/w 149 against A.2 to A.4, Sec.302 r/w 149 of IPC against A.2 to A.7, Sec. 109 of IPC against A.8 and Sec.201 of IPC against 8S.C.No.02 of 2021
A.9 were framed, read over and explained to them, for which they denied the charges and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
06.In its attempt to prove the complicity of the accused, prosecution has examined as many as 36 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.36, got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.49 and MO.1 to MO.14, the details of which are mentioned at the appendix of evidence.
07.After closure of the evidence on prosecution side, accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating material appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses.
They denied the evidence. They did not choose to adduce any oral or documentary evidence on their behalf.
08.Heard the arguments of the learned Special Public Prosecutor representing the State and the defence counsel. The learned counsel for the accused also filed written arguments.
09.The point that arises for determination is :
Whether the prosecution has succeeded in proving the guilt of A.1 to A.9 for the charges under Secs. 120-B & 148 of IPC; Secs.302 of IPC and 27 of the Arms Act against A.1, Sec.364 r/w 149 of IPC against A.2 & A.3, Sec.341 r/w 149 against A.2 to A.4, Sec.302 r/w 149 of IPC against A.2 to A.7, Sec. 109 of IPC against A.8 and Sec.201 of IPC against A.9 beyond all reasonable doubt?
Point:
10.Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that A.1, Marati Chandra
Shekar and the deceased, Marati Jagan Mohan are the real brothers. In the
Grama Panchayat Elections of their native village, Pedda Chintakunta, wives of
A.1 and deceased filed their nominations to the Post of Sarpanch on 13-07-2013. Accused No.1 asked his deceased brother to see that his wife 9S.C.No.02 of 2021
Ashritha (PW.11) shall withdraw her nomination to facilitate his wife (A.8) to elect unanimously. As the deceased and his wife (PW.11) refused to oblige,
Accused No.1 got filed a case against them through his henchman, (PW.12) for the offences punishable under the provisions of SC/ST (POA) Act; and that when the deceased approached his brother, Accused No.1 and questioned him for filing the said case, Accused No.1 demanded him to see that his wife shall withdraw her nomination. Having no other go, the deceased, after obtaining the signatures of his wife (PW.11) on the papers to withdraw her nomination, on 17-07-2013 went there along with P.Ramesh Reddy (PW.3), K.Rajender
Prasad (PW.6) and B.Kishore Rajashekar (LW.6) in a rented car driven by
PW.10; and on the way, they stopped the car opposite to Saiprasad Udipi
Hotel, Devarakadra to where A.1 came in his car driven by B.Ramesh Babu (A.9), picked up quarrel with his brother Jagan Mohan, pushed and fired at him with his pistol and killed him.
11.The defence of the accused is one of total denial.
12.The death of Marati Jagan Mohan with fire arm injuries is not in dispute. For that matter, there is no dispute as to the homicidal death of
Jagan Mohan, on 17-07-2013.
13.Unfortunately, none of the witnesses examined including the own family members of the deceased supported the case of the prosecution. On the other hand, in a way, they supported the defence put-forth by the accused as if some unknown persons overpowered the deceased, snatched his pistol and fired at him resulting his instantaneous death, on 17-07-2013.
10S.C.No.02 of 2021
14.Prosecution has projected K.Naresh Kumar (PW.2), P.Ramesh
Reddy (PW.3), B.Nithyananda Setty (PW.4), K.Rajender Prasad (PW.6) and
N.Ramesh (PW.10) as the eye witnesses to the incident where the Accused No.1 allegedly fired at his brother Jagan Mohan and killed him in between 04.15 to 04.30 p.m. on 17-07-2013. However, during the trial, as noticed herein
before, they did not support the said version of the prosecution. All these
witnesses were turned hostile to the prosecution in toto. It is the common say of PW.2 to PW.4, who are maintaining a pan shop, mobile shop and a hotel respectively at/nearby the scene of offence that they did not see the incident in which Jagan Mohan was killed. As these material witnesses did not speak anything against the accused or the incident proper and further as they failed to stick on to the version allegedly given by them to the Police during their examination under Sec. 161 of Cr.P.C., prosecution has declared them hostile and cross-examined them with the permission of this court. In cross- examination, these witnesses namely PW.2 to PW.4 denied to have stated
before the Police as in Ex.P.3, Ex.P.4 and Ex.P.5 respectively. Further, they
denied the suggestion that they stated before the Police that in between 04.15 p.m. and 04.30 p.m. on 17-07-2013, Jedcherla MLA Chandra Shekar (A.1) came there in his Scorpio Car, abused and pushed one person down, fired at him with his pistol and killed him and later they came to know the name of the deceased as Jagan Mohan. As nothing is elicited from the mouth of these material witnesses which can be used against the accused, this court is of the opinion that the evidence of these three alleged independent eye witnesses is not at all useful to the case of the prosecution in its attempt to connect the accused with the offence.
11S.C.No.02 of 2021
15.PW.6 and PW.10 are the other alleged eye witnesses to the incident proper. Among them, PW.6 is a close relative of the deceased.
According to the prosecution, PW.6 accompanied the deceased along with others to the scene of offence from Hyderabad on the fateful day. What all
PW.6 deposed before the court, on oath, is that the deceased Jagan Mohan and his wife Ashritha (PW.11) are his relatives but he did not know anything about this case. In the cross-examination by the prosecution, he denied to have stated before the Police as in Ex.P.7. He further denied the suggestion that on 17-07-2013, himself and his relative B.Kishore (LW.6) whose whereabouts is not known, accompanied the deceased Jagan Mohan to Mahabubnagar in a car, on their way to Pusalapadu at around 02.45 p.m. they reached Mahabubnagar
Town where Timmanna (A.2) and Narasimhulu (A.3) met the deceased and had discussion with him for withdrawal of SC/ST (POA) Act case; and that A.2 and
A.3 took them to Devarakhadra Old Bus Stand; and that at around 04.00 p.m.
they met Ramulu (A.4) and in the meanwhile, A.1 came there in between 04.15 p.m. and 04.25 p.m. abused the deceased for not withdrawing the nomination of his wife for the post of Sarpanch and fired at him with his pistol and killed him. Except the above said suggestion which was promptly denied by this witness, nothing is elicited which can be used against the accused. Thus, the evidence of this witness (PW.6) who is admittedly a relative of deceased is also not useful to the case of the prosecution.
16.Another eye witness testified as PW.10 is the driver of rented car in which deceased, PW.6 and one Kishore Rajashekar (LW.6) went to
Devarakhadra from Hyderabad on the fateful day. Even this witness also did not support the case of the prosecution on material particulars. It is the say of 12S.C.No.02 of 2021
PW.10 that he picked up the deceased at his house at Secunderabad in between 11.30 p.m. to 12.00 noon, proceeded to Devarakhadra and reached there at around 03.00 or 03.30 p.m. and they stopped the car near a hotel at chowrasta, Devarakhadra, by the time they reached there 3 or 4 persons were waiting for the deceased; and that there was an altercation took place between the deceased and the said four persons waiting there, deceased Jagan Mohan took out his postal from his back but the persons present there overpowered and snatched the pistol from the hands of the deceased and shooted him; and that he can identify the said 3 or 4 persons but they were not among the accused. As this witness did not speak as to the incident proper or against any of the accused facing trial and further as he failed to stick on to the version allegedly given by him during his examination under Sec. 161 of
Cr.P.C., prosecution has declared him as hostile and cross-examined him with the permission of this court. In cross-examination, he denied to have stated
before the Police as in Ex.P.11. He further denied the suggestion that while
he was present opposite to Udipi hotel, Devarakhadra in between 04.15 p.m.
and 04.30 p.m., Jedcherla MLA Chandra Shekar (A.1) came there in a white cream colour Scorpio car, in the meanwhile, one Sham Mohan Reddy (A.6) came there in another car, they all quarreled with the deceased Jagan Mohan, abused him and Chandra Shekar (A.1) took out pistol from his waist and fired at the deceased twice and killed him instantaneously and left the scene of offence in their car towards Rayachur Road. Except the above said suggestion which was denied by this witness (PW.10), prosecution could not elicit any material which can be used against the accused. Thus, the evidence of this witness is also not useful to the case of the prosecution. On the other hand, as noticed herein before, this witness (PW.10) being an alleged independent eye 13S.C.No.02 of 2021 witness, leave alone supporting the case of the prosecution but in his statement
before the court made in his examination in chief, shows that some persons
other than the accused picked up quarrel with the deceased and when the deceased took out his pistol, overpowered on him and snatched the pistol from his hand and one of them fired at him. This is all together a different story which is contrary to the case put-forth by the prosecution. Any way, as noticed herein before, this witness (PW.10) did not speak anything against the accused more particularly against A.1. Though the evidence of this witness (PW.10) would prove that the deceased was shot dead with a pistol opposite to a hotel at Devarakhadra, his evidence, as a matter of fact, is not useful to the case of the prosecution to connect any of the accused including Accused No.1 to the incident proper. Thus, the evidence of this witness (PW.10) is also not useful to the case of the prosecution. As already pointed out by this court, none of the alleged independent eye witnesses including the relative of the deceased supported the case of the prosecution. Thus, the evidence of PW.2 to
PW.4, PW.6 and PW.10, the alleged independent eye witnesses to the incident, is not useful to the case of the prosecution in any way.
17.According to the prosecution, it is PW.1 being the Village Revenue
Officer (VRO), Devarakhadra, reported the incident on hand basing on which
B.Narasimhulu, S.I. of Police, Devarakhadra P.S. (PW.31) registered this case against unknown offenders for the offences under Sec.302 of I.P.C. and Sec.27 of the Arms Act against unknown offenders, at around 05.30 p.m. on 17-07- 2013. However, during the trial, this witness (PW.1) except admitting his signature on the report marked as Ex.P.1, denied all other contents. What all he deposed before the court is that at the instance of S.I. of Police, he signed 14S.C.No.02 of 2021 on a prepared report in the Police Station. In the cross-examination by the counsel for the accused, he stated that he did not know the contents of Ex.P.1.
According to the prosecution, it is on the information given by his colleague,
G.Sailu (PW.5), Village servant, PW.1 reported the matter to Police regarding the incident. However, even the said witness (PW.5) also did not support the above version of prosecution. In the cross-examination by the Special Public
Prosecutor, he denied the suggestion that on coming to know the huge gathering near Saiprasad Udipi Hotel, Devarakhadra, at around 04.30 p.m. on 17-07-2013, he rushed there, found one person in a pool of blood and informed it to his colleague (PW.1) later he came to know the name of the deceased as Jagan Mohan of Peddachintakunta Village. As nothing important is elicited even from the mouth of these witnesses testified as PW.1 and PW.5, this court is of the opinion that their evidence is also not useful to the case of the prosecution in its attempt to connect the accused with the crime.
18.R.Narasimulu (PW.7) & M.Ashritha (PW.11), brother-in-law and the wife of deceased Jagan Mohan, respectively are the circumstantial witnesses. Even according to the prosecution, PW.7 & PW.11 are not the witnesses to the incident proper. Even these two witnesses, being brother-in- law and wife of deceased also did not support the version put-forth by the prosecution in toto. It is the say of PW.7 that on coming to know the killing of his brother-in-law, Jagan Mohan, through T.V. News, he rushed to
Government Hospital, Mahabubnagar where he found the dead body of his brother-in-law on 18-07-2013. It is his further say that the Police present there enquired his name and relationship with the deceased but not recorded his statement. On the same count, it is the say of PW.11 who is no other 15S.C.No.02 of 2021 than the wife of deceased that her husband, Jagan Mohan was having real estate transactions at Devarakhadra; and that theirs being a political family her husband was having life threat, consequently, while proceeding to
Devarakhadra at around 12.00 noon or 12.30 p.m. on 17-07-2013 carried his pistol with him; and that at around 05.30 p.m. on that day, she came to know that her husband was killed at Devarakhadra through T.V. News; and that she did not know who killed her husband. She, however, added that herself and
Bhavani (A.8), wife of Accused No.1 filed their nominations for the Sanpanch of Peddachintakunta at the instance of Accused No.1. It is clear from the above statement of PW.11 made before the court on oath that she did not support the version put-forth by the prosecution in toto. On the other hand, her substantial evidence would show that she filed nomination to the Sanpanch post of their native village, Peddachintakunta at the instance of Accused No.1.
As a matter of fact, the motive for the offence, according to the prosecution, is as this witness (PW.11) refused to withdraw her nomination to enable Accused
No.8 to elect unanimously, her husband Accused No.1 killed the deceased, but the substantial evidence of this witness is otherwise. It is her say that she filed her nomination at the instance of Accused No.1, her brother-in-law, which is totally different from the prosecution story. On the other hand, her evidence on oath shows that her deceased husband had real estate transactions at Devarakhadra and her husband was having threat to his life, carried pistol with him. This version of PW.11, in a way, supporting the defence of the accused. Though the prosecution has examined this witness to prove the motive for the incident, as she did not support the said version, but gave an altogether different version, this court is of the opinion that the prosecution failed to prove the motive for the incident. Of course, it is well settled 16S.C.No.02 of 2021 principle of law that motive plays no important role when there is evidence of eye witnesses. But in the case on hand, as all the alleged eye witnesses including a relative of the deceased did not support the case of the prosecution, this court is of the opinion that the prosecution failed to prove the motive for the incident proper which is an essential ingredient to prove the guilt of the accused. It is under these circumstances, this court is left with no option except to hold that the evidence of the own brother-in-law (PW.7) and the wife (PW.11) of deceased is also not useful to the case of the prosecution in its attempt to connect the accused with the offence.
19.PW.8 and PW.9 are the Personal Security Officers of Accused
No.1, Chandra Shekar. It goes without saying that MLAs and MPs are provided with the Personal Security Officers round the clock to provide security to them. According to the prosecution, PW.8 and PW.9 are the Personal
Security Officers of Accused No.1 as on the date of the incident. Prosecution has examined these two witnesses to prove that the Accused No.1, without taking them with him, left his house at round 03.45 p.m. on the date of incident. However, it is the substantial evidence of these two witnesses that around 05.30 p.m. on 17-07-2013, Accused No.1 along with his driver, Ramesh
Babu (A.9) went outside, leaving them at his house and even before Accused
No.1 returned to his house on that day, they left the duty on the instructions of their Armed Reserve S.I. of Police. By all means, they are supposed to be with Accused No.1 round the clock to provide security to him. Even according to the prosecution, these two witnesses being Personal Security Officers of
Accused No.1 did not accompany him on the date of incident. These two witnesses peculiarly stated as if Accused No.1 left his house at around 05.30 17S.C.No.02 of 2021 p.m. on 17-07-2013 in his car along with his driver (A.9). In a way, these two witnesses also supported the version of the defence by giving different time of A.1 leaving his house. According to the prosecution, Accused No.1 left the house in his car around 03.45 p.m. on 17-07-2013 but these two witness, in one voice, stated that Accused No.1 left along with his driver (A.9), at around 05.30 p.m. by which time, admittedly, the crime was committed elsewhere at Devarakhadra which is at a distance of 30 Kilometers from
Mahabubnagar. According to the evidence of PW.1 and PW.31 the crime in this case was registered at around 05.30 p.m. on 17-07-2013, but according to these two witnesses, Accused No.1 left the house at around 05.30 p.m. on 17-07-2013. In cross-examination, they denied to have stated before the Police as in Ex.P.9 and Ex.P.10 respectively as the Accused No.1 left the house at around 03.45 p.m. on 17-07-2013 stating that he will come back within 10 minutes. As noticed herein before, these two witnesses being the Personal
Security Officers of Accused No.1, as on the date of incident, did not support the version put-forth by the prosecution. Though the evidence of these witnesses would prove that Accused No.1 left his house on 17-07-2013 leaving them at his house, as they gave a different version as to the time of leaving of
Accused No.1 of his house their evidence is not much useful to the case of the prosecution.
20.Prosecution has examined one P.Ramesh as PW.12 understandably to prove that he reported against the deceased Jagan Mohan and his wife,
Ashritha (PW.11) basing on which the Station House Officer, Markal P.S.
registered a case against them under the provisions of SC/ST (POA) Act. But, during the trial, prosecution failed to muster his support. He denied to have 18S.C.No.02 of 2021 give any report against the deceased Jagan Mohan and his wife Ashritha (PW.11) under the provisions of SC/ST (POA) Act. In the cross-examination by the Special Public Prosecution, he denied to have stated before the Police as in
Ex.P.13. He denied the suggestion that he gave report to Markal Police against the deceased and Ashritha (PW.11) alleging that they abused him touching his caste. In this regard, I may say that though the prosecution alleged that at the instance of this witness (PW.12) a case was registered against the deceased
Jagan Mohan and his wife Ashritha (PW.11) under the provision of SC/ST (POA) Act in the Markal P.S., for the reasons best known to him, the
Investigating Officer (PW.32) did not even collect a copy of FIR and the report allegedly given by PW.12 to Markal Police against the deceased and PW.11 and filed before the court for its perusal. In the absence of any such documents like FIR and the report of this witness (PW.12) more particularly in the light of denial of giving report by PW.12 against the deceased and his wife Ashritha (PW.11), this court is of the opinion that no weight can be attached to his evidence. Thus, it is clear from the above that the prosecution did not even prove that as PW.11 allegedly refused to withdraw her nomination filed against
Accused No.8, who is the wife of Accused No.1, he (A.1) got filed a case against his deceased brother and his wife (PW.11) under the provisions of
SC/ST (POA) Act through his follower (PW.12) to bring them to his terms and developed animosity against his own brother and killed him.
21.It is the say of D.Chandrashekar (PW.13) and Y.Thirupathaiah (PW.14), the Teachers who acted as Returning Officers for Pusalapadu Cluster which consists of 5 grampanchayaths including Peddachintakunta Village, in the year 2013, Bhavani (A.8) and Ashritha (PW.11) filed their nominations for 19S.C.No.02 of 2021
Sarpanch post of Peddachintakunta Village in which Bhavani was declared elected. The evidence of these two witnesses would prove that in the
Grampanchayat elections of Peddachintakunta, PW.11 and Accused No.8 being wives of the deceased Jagan Mohan and Accused No.1, Chandra Shekar, filed their nominations to the post of Sarpanch of Peddachintakunta village
Grampanchayat in which Accused No.8 was declared elected, on contest.
22.S.Chandra Mohan Reddy (PW.15) is the owner of Maruthi Ertiga
Car bearing No. AP 28 BW 2013. According to the prosecution, S.Surya
Mohan Reddy (A.6) being the brother of this witness (PW.15) took his car to go to Jedcheral MLA Chandra Shekar on 17-07-2013. This version of the prosecution was not supported by this witness (PW.15). Even in the cross- examination of this witness, prosecution could not elicit any material which would support the version of the prosecution at-least to hold that Accused No.6 herein took MO.1-car of his brother (PW.15) on 17-07-2013 to go to
Mahabubnagar to meet Accused No.1.
23.According to the prosecution, the Investigating Officer (PW.32) had availed the services of K.Mohan (PW.16), a photographer to videograph the scene of offence situated opposite to Saiprasad Udipi Hotel, Devarakadhra including the dead body. However, during the trial, even this witness also did not support the case of the prosecution on material particulars. On oath, he made a statement before the court that on his own at around 04.00 p.m. on 17-07-2013, videographed the dead body and gathering of people in front of
Saiprasad Hotel, Devarakhadra which was later telecasted on ABN Andhra
Jyothi T.V. and on the request of Devarakhadra Police, he handed over them 20S.C.No.02 of 2021 the clippings of the videograph. As the prosecution failed to obtain and file
Sec. 65-B Certificate from this witness (PW.16), the C.D. produced by it was not marked as an exhibit through him. In cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that he photographed the scene of offence including the dead body at the instance of Inspector of Police, Atmakur and handed over the C.D. and photographs to him. As a matter of fact, the CD which was exhibited in the open court contain only the photographs but not the video. Further, as this witness (PW.16) disowned the CD and as there is no Certificate issued under
Sec. 65-B of the Evidence Act, the said CD and photographs were not marked through him as exhibits. Thus, it can be said without hesitation that the photographs and CD though available on record were not proved through the person concerned.
24.Prosecution even failed to prove the recovery of bullets, cell phones, blood stained and controlled earth from the scene of offence as both the alleged panch witnesses examined as PW.17 and PW.18, Village Revenue
Assistants, did not support the version of prosecution in toto. What all they deposed before the court is that they were summoned to the scene of offence situated opposite to Saiprasad Udipi hotel, Devarakhadra where they noticed dead body of a male person in pool of blood, a pistol, two bullets, two cell phones which the Police seized and later their signatures were obtained in the
Police Station. It is not the case of the prosecution that a pistol was found at the dead body of the deceased and they seized it. But these two witnesses added as if they found a pistol in the scene of offence by the side of the dead body. On the other hand, they did not speak as to the seizure of blood stained and controlled earth from the scene of offence in their presence. They 21S.C.No.02 of 2021 added their signatures were obtained by the Police in the Police Station at around 11.00 p.m. on the date of incident. These two witnesses, as a matter of fact, deposed as if the Police found MO.10-pistol at the scene of offence itself which is not at all the case of the prosecution. According to the prosecution, pistol (MO.10) was seized from the possession of Accused No.1 long after the incident in the presence of panch witnesses. Thus, the substantial evidence of these two witnesses is not in the line of the prosecution case but on the other hand, it watered down the very case put-forth by the prosecution that MO.10 was seized from the possession of Accused No.1 in the presence of panch witnesses. Any way, the evidence of these two witnesses is useful to the limited extent to hold that PW.32 being the Investigating Officer had recovered bullets, mobile phones, blood stained and controlled earth from scene of offence.
25.Prosecution has projected P.Anjaneyulu (PW.19) and Madhu (PW.29) as the inquestdars over the dead body of deceased, Jagan Mohan.
However, during the trial, these two witnesses also did not support the said version of prosecution. It is the common say of these two witnesses that there was no occasion for them to act as inquestdars over the dead body of Jagan
Mohan. As these two witnesses being the inquestdars have deviated from the contents of inquest report, prosecution declared them as hostile and cross- examined them. In cross-examination, except admitting their signatures on some pages of inquest panchanama, these two witnesses denied to have acted as inquestdars and arrived at apparent cause of death of Jagan Mohan is due to bullet injuries. As these two witnesses denied to have acted as inquestdars over the dead body of deceased, Jagan Mohan, the prosecution could not even 22S.C.No.02 of 2021 prove that PW.32 being the Investigating Officer had held inquest over the dead body of Jagan Mohan and arrived at a prima face opinion as to the apparent cause of death of Jagan Mohan is due to bullet injuries.
26.Prosecution even failed to prove the so-called the confessional statements of A.2 to A.4 as both the panch witnesses testified as PW.20 and
PW.22, turned hostile to the prosecution, completely. Further, the prosecution failed to prove the so-called confessional statements of A.5 to A.7 as both the panch witnesses testified as PW.24 and PW.25, turned hostile to the prosecution, totally. Further, as the so-called confessional statements of A.2 to
A.7 were made in the immediate presence of Police Officer (IO) and further their confessional statements did not lead to the recovery of any weapon or material objects used in the commission of offence, their confessional statements are hit by Sec. 27 of the Evidence Act, as such no weight can be attached to them.
27.According to the prosecution, the Investigating Officer (PW.32) recorded the confessional statement of Accused No.1 and seized MO.10 pistol from his possession in the presence of Mohd.Tayyab (PW.21) and Khaledbin
Mohd. Iqbal (PW.23). During the trial, these two panch witnesses also did not support the version put-forth by the prosecution. What all these two witnesses deposed before the court on oath is that at the instance of their Tahasildar on 26-08-2013 they went to the Office of the Superintendent of Police,
Mahabubnagar where the police personnel in civil dress obtained their signatures on some written papers. They added that no proceedings like recording the confessional statement of any person including seizure of material 23S.C.No.02 of 2021 objects took place in their presence. As these two witnesses have deviated from the contents of the panchanama which was subsequently marked through the Investigating Officer (PW.32), prosecution declared them hostile and cross examined them. In cross-examination, except admitting their signatures on the panchanama dated 26-08-2013, they denied all other contents. They denied the suggestion that the Inspector of Police (PW.32) recorded the statement of
Accused No.1 and seized one pistol from his possession in their presence. As nothing is elicited in their cross-examination, it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that Accused No.1 confessed the offence of killing his brother,
Jagan Mohan and the Investigating Officer had seized MO.10 from his possession. Thus, the evidence of these two witnesses is also of no avail to the prosecution.
28.According to the prosecution, PW.32 being the Investigating
Officer, after obtaining Accused No.1 for Custody through court, on 02-09- 2013, seized his Arms License (Ex.P.44) from his possession in the presence of
Sathyanna (PW.26) and P.Thimmaiah (PW.27), panch witnesses. It is the common say of PW.26 and PW.27 that in the month of September, 2013,
Inspector of Police, obtained their signatures on some papers but no proceedings like recording the confessional statement of Accused No.1 and seizure of material objects took place in their presence. As these two witnesses deviated from the contents of the panchanama dated 02-09-2013 (Ex.P.45), prosecution declared them as hostile and cross-examined them. In the cross- examination, except admitting their signatures on the panchanama which was subsequently marked as Ex.P.45 through the Investigating Officer, they denied all other contents of it like Accused No.1 made confessional statement and 24S.C.No.02 of 2021
Investigating Officer seized Arms License under Ex.P.45 in their presence.
Thus, the evidence of these two witnesses is also not useful to the case of the prosecution.
29.In its attempt to prove that the Investigating Officer (PW.32) had seized MO.1-car from PW.15, prosecution has examined K.Bhanuchandar (PW.28) and P.Nagaraju (PW.30). However, during the trial, it failed to muster their support for these two witnesses turned hostile to the prosecution, completely.
30.It appears from the material on record, Dr.P.Narasimha Kumar shown as LW.36 conducted autopsy over the dead body of Jagan Mohan on 18-07-2013 at District Hospital, Mahabubnagar. However, as the said
Narasimha Kumar is no more, prosecution tried to prove the hand writing and signatures of said Dr.P.Narasimha Kumar available on postmortem examination through his erstwhile colleagues. However, it failed in its attempt to mark the
PME as an exhibit as all the erstwhile colleagues of said Narasimha Kumar examined PW.33 to PW.35 expressed their inability to identify the hand writing and signatures of Narasimha Kumar. In this regard, I may say that though the prosecution failed to prove the cause of death of deceased, Jagan Mohan through the medical officer, who conducted postmortem examination or through his colleagues, as discussed at the beginning, there is no denial of the fact that the deceased in this case was killed due to bullet injuries.
31.Dr.V.Venkateshwarlu (PW.36) is the Ballistic Expert working with
TSFSL, Hyderabad. The evidence of PW.36 coupled with Ex.P.48-opinion 25S.C.No.02 of 2021 would prove that MO.10-pistol was in working condition and cartridges marked as MO.3 and MO.5 (retrieved from the dead body), MO.3-live round of cartridges were fired from MO.10.
32.B.Narsimhulu (PW.31) and G.Govardhanagiri (PW.32) are the
Investigating Officers. Among them, PW.31 being the Sub-Inspector of Police,
Devarakhadra P.S. at the relevant time merely registered this case against unknown offenders and issued Ex.P.39-FIRs to all the concerned. He deposed as to the registration of the crime against unknown offenders including the issuance of Ex.P.39-FIR, while PW.32 being the Investigating Officer deposed as to observation of scene of offence, inquest over the dead body of deceased,
Jagan Mohan, recording the statement of witnesses, arrest of the accused and recording their confessional statements, seizure of mobile phones, MO.1-car from PW.15, MO.6-car from Accused No.1 and filing of charge sheet. As per the record, though PW.32 being the Investigating Officer allegedly seized the mobile phones of all the accused persons, for the reasons best known to him, he did not forward them to the Expert for retrieving the data, as admitted by him in the cross-examination. He did not even collect any CCTV footages from the toll-gates to prove the travel of the deceased, Jagan Mohan and Accused
No.1 to the scene of offence, as admitted by the him in the cross-examination.
It is a serious lacunae on the part of the Investigating Officer.
33.Though there is enough evidence on record to hold that Marati
Jagan Mohan was killed due to fire arm injuries on 17-07-2013 at
Devarakhadra, there is no evidence much less worth acceptable on record to hold that the Accused No.1 herein, in conspiracy with other accused fired at 26S.C.No.02 of 2021 him in between 04.15 to 04.25 p.m. on 17-07-2013 at Devarakhadra village of
Mahabubnagar District. With this in mind, this court is of the opinion that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for any of the charges framed against them, beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, all the accused are entitled to acquittal. Point is, accordingly, answered in favour of the defence and against the prosecution.
34.In the result, A.1 to A.9 are found not guilty for the charges under Secs. 120-B and 148 of I.P.C.; A.2 and A.3 are found not guilty for the charge under Sec. 364 r/w 149 of I.P.C.; A.2 to A.4 are found not guilty for the charge under Sec. 341 r/w 149 of I.P.C.; A.1 is found not guilty for the charges under Sec. 302 of I.P.C. and Sec. 27 of the Arms Act; A.2 to A.7 are found not guilty for the charge under Sec. 302 r/w 149 of I.P.C.; A.8 is found not guilty for the charge under Sec. 109 of I.P.C. and A.9 is found not guilty for the charge under Sec. 201 of I.P.C. Accordingly, they are acquitted under
Sec. 235 (1) of Cr.P.C. for the said charges.
35.MO.1-Car bearing No. AP 28 BW 2013 which was given to
S.Chandra Mohan Reddy (PW.15) to interim custody shall continue after appeal time is over. MO.6-Car bearing No. AP 09 CN 5787 which was given to
Marati Chandra Shekar (A.1) to interim custody shall continue after appeal time is over. MO.10-pistol, MO.3 and MO.5-cartridges (live, retrieved and used) shall be handed over to the State Armoury after appeal time over.
MO.2, MO.7, MO.8, MO.9, MO.11 to MO.14-mobile phones and MO.4-clothes shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.
36.The bonds and bail bonds of all accused shall be in force for 6 months as provided under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.
27S.C.No.02 of 2021
Dictated to Stenographer Grade-I and typed to my dictation,
partly, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 13th May of May, 2022.
Special Sessions Judge for trial of Criminal Cases relating to elected M.Ps. And M.L.As. Of the State of Telangana at Hyderabad.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PROSECUTION:
PW.1 :G.Satyanarayana (Defacto-complainant). PW.2 :K.Naresh Kumar (Eye witness). PW.3 :P.Ramesh Reddy (Eye witness). PW.4 :B.Nithyananda Setty (Eye witness). PW.5 :G.Sailu (Circumstantial witness). PW.6 :K.Rajender Prasad (Eye witness). PW.7 :R.Narasimulu (Circumstantial witness). PW.8 :M.D.Ismail (Circumstantial witness). PW.9 :G.Ravinder Reddy (Circumstantial witness). PW.10:N.Ramesh (Eye witness). PW.11:M.Ashritha ( Circumstantial witness). PW.12:P.Ramesh ( Circumstantial witness). PW.13:D.Chandra Shekar ( Circumstantial witness). PW.14:Y.Thirupathaiah ( Circumstantial witness). PW.15:S.Chandra Mohan Reddy ( Circumstantial witness). PW.16:K.Mohan, Photographer. PW.17:Ch.Pentaiah (Panch witness for scene of offence). PW.18:Ch.Balaiah (Panch witness for scene of offence). PW.19:P.Anjaneyulu (Panch witness for inquest).
PW.20:K.Venkateswar Reddy (Panch witness for confession and recovery panchanama of A.2 to A.4 & A.9). PW.21:Mohd.Tayyab ((Panch witness for confession and recovery panchanama of A.1). PW.22:A.Ram Reddy (Panch witness for confession and recovery panchanama of A.2 to A.4 & A.9). PW.23:Khaledbin Mohd.Iqbal (Panch witness for confession and recovery panchanama of A.1). PW.24:B.Venkatramulu (Panch witness for confession and recovery panchanama of A.5 to A.7). PW.25:B.Venkateshwar Reddy (Panch witness for confession and recovery panchanama of A.5 to A.7). PW.26:Satyanna (Panch witness for confession and recovery panchanama of A.1). PW.27:P.Thimmaiah (Panch witness for confession and recovery panchanama of A.1). PW.28:K.Bhanuchandar (Panch witness for seizure of car from PW.15).
28S.C.No.02 of 2021
PW.29:B.Madhu (Panch witness for inquest). PW.30:P.Nagaraju (Panch witness for seizure of car from PW.15). PW.31:B.Narasimulu, S.I. of Police, Devarakadra (1st I.O.). PW.32:G.Goverdhana Giri, C.I. of Police, Atmakur (2nd I.O.). PW.33:Dr.S.Chakradhar Goud, Civil Asst. Surgeon (Orthopedic), District Hospital, Mahabubnagar. PW.34:G.Bala Srinivas, Civil Asst. Surgeon, District Hospital, Mahabubnagar. PW.35:Dr.B.Mothilal, Civil Asst. Surgeon, District Hospital, Mahabubnagar. PW.36:Dr.V.Venkateshwarlu, Asst. Director, TSFSL.
FOR DEFENCE:NIL
EXHIBITS MARKED
FOR PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1 :Report of PW.1. Ex.P.2 :Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.1. Ex.P.3 :Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.2. Ex.P.4 :Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.3. Ex.P.5 :Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.4. Ex.P.6 :Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.5. Ex.P.7:Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.6. Ex.P.8:Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.7. Ex.P.9:Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.8. Ex.P.10:Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.9. Ex.P.11:Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.10. Ex.P.12:Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.11. Ex.P.13:Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.12. Ex.P.14:Signature of PW.19 on Inquest Panchanama, dt.18-07-2013. Ex.P.15:Signature of PW.20 on panchanama, dated 26-08-2013. Ex.P.16:Signature of PW.20 on panchanama, dated 26-08-2013. Ex.P.17:Signature of PW.20 on panchanama, dated 26-08-2013. Ex.P.18:Signature of PW.20 on panchanama, dated 26-08-2013. Ex.P.19:Signature of PW.21 on panchanama, dated 26-08-2013. Ex.P.20:Signature of PW.22 on panchanama, dated 26-08-2013. Ex.P.21:Signature of PW.22 on panchanama, dated 26-08-2013. Ex.P.22:Signature of PW.22 on panchanama, dated 26-08-2013. Ex.P.23:Signature of PW.22 on panchanama, dated 26-08-2013. Ex.P.24:Signature of PW.23 on panchanama, dated 26-08-2013. Ex.P.25:Signature of PW.24 on panchanama, dated 31-08-2013. Ex.P.26:Signature of PW.24 on panchanama, dated 31-08-2013. Ex.P.27:Signature of PW.24 on panchanama, dated 31-08-2013. Ex.P.28:Signature of PW.25 on panchanama, dated 31-08-2013. Ex.P.29:Signature of PW.25 on panchanama, dated 31-08-2013. Ex.P.30:Signature of PW.25 on panchanama, dated 31-08-2013.
29S.C.No.02 of 2021
Ex.P.31:Signature of PW.26 on panchanama, dated 02-09-2013. Ex.P.32:Signature of PW.26 on panchanama, dated 02-09-2013. Ex.P.33:Signature of PW.27 on panchanama, dated 02-09-2013. Ex.P.34:Signature of PW.27 on panchanama, dated 02-09-2013. Ex.P.35:Signature of PW.28 on panchanama, dated 12-12-2013. Ex.P.36:Signature of PW.29 on inquest panchanama, dated 18-07-2013. Ex.P.37:Signature of PW.30 on panchanama, dated 12-12-2013. Ex.P.38:Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.15. Ex.P.39:Printed F.I.R. in Crime No. 106 of 2013 issued by PW.31. Ex.P.40: Panchanama. Ex.P.41:Rough Sketch of scene of offence. Ex.P.42:Six positive photographs with CD. Ex.P.43:Inquest Panchanama of deceased. Ex.P.44:Arms license. Ex.P.45:Relevant portion of panchanama, dated 02-09-2013. Ex.P.46:Sanction Order. Ex.P.47:Opinion, dated 22-10-2013. Ex.P.48:Second opinion. Ex.P.49: Opinion given by Dr.K.Ramadevi dated 19.04.2013.
FOR DEFENCE:NIL.
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED
MO.1 :Car bearing No. AP 28 BW 2013. MO.2 :Mobile phones (2). MO.3 :Two live rounds of Cartridges. MO.4 :Clothes of deceased including shirt, baniyan, pants and underwear. MO.5 :Bullets retrieved from the dead body. MO.6 :Car bearing No. AP 9 CN 5787 produced by A.1. MO.7 :Mobile phone received from A.2. MO.8 :Mobile phone received from A.3. MO.9 :Mobile phone received from A.4. MO.10:Pistol (without cartridges). MO.11:Cell phone. MO.12:Mobile phone received from A.5. MO.13:Mobile phone received from A.6. MO.14:Mobile phone received from A.7.
Special Sessions Judge for trial of Criminal Cases relating to elected M.Ps. and M.L.As. of the State of Telangana at Hyderabad.