SC 562 of 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE XI ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE-cum-XI ADDL.
METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC): RR DISTRICT: AT MEDCHAL (Monday on this the 29th day of April, 2022)
PRESENT: Smt. K.JAYANTHI,
XI Addl. District & Sessions Judge (FTC) RR District, at Medchal
SESSIONS CASE No. 562 of 2016
(P.R.C. No.22/2016 on the file of the XV Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, at Medchal, Ranga Reddy District in Crime No.472 of 2015 of Police Station Medchal)
COMPLAINANT:-The State of Telangana, represented through Inspector of Police, Police Station Medchal
ACCUSED:-(1) Sri. Nattala Ramulu, S/o late Pentaiah, age 42 years, Occ:Labour, R/o Laxmi das garden, Beside Railway Station, Nampally, Hyderabad, N/o H.No.4-90, Maddigatla Village, Bhoothpur Mandal, Mahboobnagar district. (2) Sri. Nattala Nagaraju, S/o late Pentaiah, age 32 years, Occ:Student, R/o CITU Office, In front of 104 Pillar, Attapur ring road, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad, N/o H.No.4-90, Maddigatla Village, Bhoothpur Mandal, Mahboobnagar district. (3)Sri. Appagalla Mahender @ Chinna, S/o Ananthaiah, age 29 years, Occ:Painter, r/o H.No.9-1-852, Kalidasupura, Langer House, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad, N/o Bompalli Village, Pargi Mandal, RR District. (4) Smt. Nattala Balachennamma, W/o Nattala Ramulu, age 32 years, Occ:Labour, R/o Laxmi das garden, Beside Railway Station, Nampally, Hyderabad, N/o H.No.4-90, Maddigatla Village, Bhoothpur Mandal, Mahboobnagar district.
1 of 23 XI Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC)
RR District, at Medchal
SC 562 of 2016
Offences Charged:-120-B, 302, 201 r/w 34 of IPC
Plea of the Accused:-A1 to A4 are pleaded not guilty
Finding of the Court:-A1 to A4 are found not guilty
SENTENCE OR ORDER:IN THE RESULT, the Accused Nos.1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 120-B, 302, 201 r/w 34 of IPC and they are hereby acquitted under Section 235(1) CrPC. MO.1/Net cash of Rs.4000/- (Rs.Four thousand only); MO.11/Cellkon Cell phone;MO.12/SamsungPhone GTC5310; MO.13/Samsung cell phone shall be confiscate to State after lapse of appeal time; and MOs.2 to 11 (i.e., Charm Cigarette packet, Match box (ship), House key (Bajaj Company), one Handkerchief (black and yellow stripes), one key chain, two pieces of rope made with coconut substance, one pair of paragaon chappal, knife and axe) shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time. The bail bonds of the accused and surety bonds shall stay in force for six months from this date.
Prosecution conducted by:-Sri. C. Sham Rao,
Additional Public Prosecutor
Accused is defended by:-M/s. S. Srinivas, Defence Counsel on behalf of Accused
This case having come before me for final hearing on Dt.19.04.2022 in the presence of Sri. C.Sham Rao, learned Additional Public Prosecutor and of M/s. S. Srinivas, learned counsel for accused and having perused the evidence adduced and exhibits marked and other material papers on record, having heard both sides and stood over for consideration till this day, this Court has delivered the following:-
2 of 23 XI Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC)
RR District, at Medchal
SC 562 of 2016
:: J U D G M E N T ::
1.The Inspector of Police, Medchal Police Station, Cyberabad filed Charge
Sheet against Accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offence under Section 120-B, 302, 201 r/w 34 of IPC in Crime No.472 of 2015.
2.The brief facts of the Prosecution case are as follows:-
(a)On dt.15.08.2015, at 13.30 hours, PW.18 received information that a murder took place in Survey No.1011, which is poramboke land in the outskirts of
Medchal Village and rushed to the spot at 14.00 hours and received a complaint from
PW.1/Village Revenue Assistant stating that on dt.15.08.2015, at about 13.00 hours,
PW.1 came to know that one unknown dead body of a male person was found lying in the outskirts of Medchal and on receipt of such information, he rushed there and found the dead body in Survey No.1011, which is poramboke land and it is nearer to a culvert where there is a road, which runs from Medchal to Gowdavelly Village. On observation the dead body was lying in a pool of blood under Babul trees with deep cut throat injuries in prostrate position and the distance between dead body and culvert is about 50 meters. The deceased was aged about 30-32 years and clad with white shirt with orange stripes, white banian, black cotton pant, blue colour underwear and also wearing brown colour paragon leather chappals and in addition to that he was wearing a brass kadiyam to his right hand wrist and a tattoo mark was
3 of 23 XI Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC)
RR District, at Medchal
SC 562 of 2016
written in Telugu as Bala Nagaiah on his right forehand. PW.1 thought some unknown persons might have killed him by cutting his throat more than half with a sharp edged blunt weapon.
(b)Basing on the above-said complaint, PW.18 registered a case vide Crime
No.472 of 2015 for the offence under Section 302 of IPC. During investigation,
PW.18 by securing two mediators conducted Scene of offence Observation-cum-
Seizure Panchanama of the scene and drew rough sketch of the scene of offence and seized (1) net cash of Rs.4000/- with denomination of (Rs.500 X 8) (2) one Bajaj
Company bike key, house key of Sheel Company (3) Champs Cigarette packet with ship match box (4) Handkerchief with yellow colour stripes (5) One rope which made with coconut pieces which is length about 2 feet (6) One brass Kadiyam (7) one Pair of brown colour Paragon leather chappals including the control earth and blood stained earth under cover of observation-cum-seizure panchanama in the presence of mediators and pasted signed panch chits on the seized items as material evidence. PW.18 got photographed the scene and dead body of the deceased from different angles with the help of PW.4 and held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of PW.5 and PW.11. Thereafter, PW.18 by securing the presence of PWs.1 to 4, LW.4/M.Srikanth and LW.5/K.Gopi and recorded their detailed statements. Later, the dead body of the deceased was shifted to mortuary of
Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad and PW.16 conducted autopsy over the dead body of
4 of 23 XI Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC)
RR District, at Medchal
SC 562 of 2016
the deceased and after Postmortem examination, the dead body was preserved for identification.
(c)It is further case of the Prosecution that PW.18 forwarded seized material objects to Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad for examination and report.
Thereafter, he flashed the message with descriptive particulars of the deceased over
VHF set and also prepared look-out notices and got them exhibited at all the prominent places besides publishing in local news paper in order to identify the deceased. Further, PW.18 deputed ID Party men with instructions to identify the deceased by showing his photograph in Gowdavelly and surrounding villages. While the efforts are in progress, on dt.19.08.2015, LW.9/Natthi Balaiah, PW.6 to PW.8 came to Police Station and informed that they met with Inspector of Police at PS
KPHB seeking their whereabouts of their brother and who in turn showed them the photographs of the deceased in his cell phone in Whatsapp message and identified the deceased as the brother of LW.9/N.Balaiah and PW.6 and husband of PW.8.
Similarly, PW.18 showed them the photograph of the deceased and they have confirmed that the deceased name is Natthi Mallaiah, S/o Balanagaiah, age 32 years is their brother and husband of PW.8. Thereafter, PW.18 examined and recorded their statements. As per their statements, it is revealed that one Nattala Ramulu and his wife Smt. Balachennamma might have killed their brother as the deceased developed illegal intimacy with Balachennamma. PW.18 took them to Gandhi
5 of 23 XI Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC)
RR District, at Medchal
SC 562 of 2016
hospital mortuary, Secunderabad and on identification of the dead body of the deceased, it was handed over to them for performing last rites under proper acknowledgment.
(d)It is further case of the Prosecution that on dt.24.08.2015, at 4.00 hours, the accused A1 to A3 were apprehended at Public Garden, Nampally, Hyderabad, brought them to Police Station and on interrogation when they about to confess their guilt, by securing two mediators, PW.18 conducted confessional-cum-seizure panchanamas of A1 to A3 and seized one cell phone make Celkon with IMEI
Nos.911360108697327, 911360708679335 from A.1, one cell phone make Samsung
Model GTC 3510 with IMEI No.358650031537301 from A2 and one more cell phone make Samsung with IMEI No.357684-65351990, 357685065361997 from A3 under cover of panchanama and pasted signed panch chits. In pursuance to the confessions made by A1 to A3, A1 led the police and panchas to the house of accused at Nampally, Hyderabad and where he produced one bag containing one sharp edged knife and an axe and PW.18 seized the said material objects under cover of separate seizure report and pasted signed panch chits on the seized items in the presence of panch witnesses. Thereafter, PW.18 took A4 along with her milk sucking baby into his custody with the assistance of PW.15 and recorded her confessional statement in the presence of PWs.13 and 14. Later, PW.18 visited Gowdavelly Village by accompanying A1 to A4 along with staff and examined and recorded the statements
6 of 23 XI Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC)
RR District, at Medchal
SC 562 of 2016
of PW.9, PW.10 and PW.12. Thereafter, PW.18 effected the arrest of accused persons and got them remanded to judicial custody. PW.16 gave Postmortem Examination report stating that death was due to “Chopped Injury over neck”. LW.19/K.Arun
Jyothi, Assistant Director, APFSL, Red Hills, Nampally, Hyderabad issued FSL report stating that human blood is detected on items 1 to 6 and blood group of blood stains on items 1 to 5 is of “AB” blood group, and blood group is not detected on item No.7, blood group of blood stains on item No.6. On completion of investigation and after collecting documentary evidence, PW.19 filed charge sheet against the accused.
3.The learned XV Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, at Medchal took cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 120-B, 302, 201 r/w 34 of IPC against the accused Nos.1 to 4 and registered as P.R.C.No.22/2016. Copies of documents furnished to the accused in compliance with Section 207 of Code of
Criminal Procedure. After hearing on either side, the case is committed to the
Hon’ble Court of Sessions, RR District. The Hon’ble Principal District and Sessions
Judge, RR District taken on file as S.C.No.562 of 2016 for the offence under Section
120-B, 302, 201 r/w 34 of IPC and made over to IV Additional District and Sessions
Judge, RR District, at L.B.Nagar for disposal. Subsequently, in view of proceedings
of the of the Hon’ble Principal District and Sessions Judge vide Proceedings in
Dis.No.289/2021, dt.02.02.2021, this case is transferred from IV Additional District
7 of 23 XI Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC)
RR District, at Medchal
SC 562 of 2016
and Sessions Judge, RR District, at LB Nagar, to this Court on the point of jurisdiction.
4.After securing the presence of accused and hearing the learned Additional
Public Prosecutor and defence counsel, the accused Nos.1 to 4 are arraigned for the offence punishable under Section 120-B, 302, 201 r/w 34 of IPC and they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5.During the Course of Trial, on behalf of the Prosecution totally 19 witnesses are examined as PWs.1 to 19 and got exhibited Exs.P-1 to P-15 among MOs.1 to
MO.13. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor gave up evidence of LW.4/Sri.
M.Srikanth, LW.5/Sri.K.Gopal, LW.9/Sri.N.Balaiah, LW.21/Sri.V.Shekhar and
LW.22/Sri. Beeke Nand Yadav.
6.For the sake of convenience, the description of Prosecution Witnesses is summed up as follows:-
(a)PW.1/Sri. Janga Bhaskar – VRA, Medchal/de facto complainant
(b)PW.2/Sri. K. Srinivas – Circumstantial Witness
(c)PW.3/Sri. M. Praveen Kumar – Circumstantial Witness
(d)PW.4/Sri.T. Mahinpal Reddy – Photographer
(e)PW.5/Sri.G.Venkatreddygari Jeevan Reddy – Panch witness for Observation-cum-Seizure Panchanama & Inquest
(f)PW.6/Sri. N. Mallesh – Younger brother of the deceased – Circumstantial witness
8 of 23 XI Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC)
RR District, at Medchal
SC 562 of 2016
(g)PW.7/Sri. Ch. Shiva Nagaiah – Friend of A.1 – Circumstantial witness
(h)PW.8/Smt. N.Buchamma – Wife of the deceased – Circumstantial witness
(i)PW.9/Sri. S.Mahesh – Auto driver – Circumstantial witness
(j)PW.10/Sri. L.Anjaneyulu – Brother-in-law of A.1/brother of A.4 – Circumstantial witness
(k)PW.11/Sri. P.Vishnu - Panch witness for Observation-cum- Seizure Panchanama & Inquest
(l)PW.12/Smt. Ch. Jhansi – Neighbour of PW.10
(m)PW.13/Sri.M.Sanjeev Reddy – Panch witness for confession-cum-seizure of A1 to A3; confessional statement of A4
(n)PW.14/Sri. V. Naresh - Panch witness for confession-cum-seizure of A1 to A3; confessional statement of A4
(o)PW.15/Kum.A.R.Shalini Kumari, WPC 7188 – apprehended Accused No.4
(p)PW.16/Dr.Ch.Laxman Rao – conducted autopsy and issued PME Report
(q)PW.17/Sri.G.Pavan Kumar SI of Police – Apprehended A1 to A3
(r)PW.18/Sri.K.Shashank Reddy – First Investigating Officer
(s)PW.19/Sri.S.Rajasekhar Reddy – Second Investigating Officer
7.After closure of Prosecution evidence, the Accused Nos.1 to 4 were examined under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure on the incriminating circumstances that are appearing in the evidence on record, the accused denied their culpability and reported that they have no defence evidence on their behalf.
8.This Court heard the arguments on either side and perused the entire record.
9 of 23 XI Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC)
RR District, at Medchal
SC 562 of 2016
9.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would contend that the entire case of the Prosecution is based on Circumstantial evidence and it proved all the link of circumstances, more particularly, confession made by the accused and seizure of material objects beyond all reasonable doubt to establish the guilt of the accused and prayed to convict the accused for the offences charged against them.
10.Per Contra, the learned Defence Counsel would contend that the entire case is depending upon circumstantial evidence. There are no eye-witnesses. None of
Prosecution witnesses attributed any motive against accused. Absolutely there is no evidence on record to prove that the accused were seen along with the deceased. He would further contend that almost all the material witnesses, including the brother and wife of the deceased not supported the case of prosecution and turned hostile.
He would further contend that confession before Police Officer is not admissible in view of Sections 24 and 25 of Indian Evidence Act. In pursuance of confession if any fact is discovered then it is admissible in view of Section 27 of Indian Evidence
Act, but in the case on hand, the Prosecution have failed to prove that MOs.1 to 11 were seized at the instance of accused to prove under Section 27 of the Indian
Evidence Act. He would further contend that MOs are planted subsequently which can be clearly seen from the manufacturing date on cigarette packet and match box.
He would further contend that the Prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the
10 of 23 XI Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC)
RR District, at Medchal
SC 562 of 2016
accused beyond all reasonable doubt and they are entitled to be acquitted for the offence charged.
11.On perusal of entire record and on considering the contentions raised on either side, the following Point is framed for determination:-
1.Whether the Prosecution could prove that the A1 to A4 have criminally conspired with each other to commit the murder of Natthi Mallaih on the grudge that there was an illicit intimacy between the deceased and A.4 (wife of A.1) and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 120-B of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?
2.Whether the Prosecution could prove that the Accused Nos.1 to 4 have committed the murder of the deceased Natthi Mallaiah due to chopped injury over his neck and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?
3.Whether the Prosecution could prove that the Accused persons 1 to 4 caused disappearance of the evidence by washing blood stained clothes and by damaging SIM cards etc., to attract the offence punishable under Section 201 r/w 34 of IPC?
POINTS 1 to 3:-
12.As seen from the record, it is the brief case of the Prosecution that on dt.14.08.2015, around 8.30 p.m., at Survey No.1011, near Culvert, Poramboke land, in the outskirts of Medchal, A1 to A4 criminally conspired with each other to commit the murder of Natthi Mallaiah, S/o Balanagaiah, age 32 years, on the grudge that there was an illicit intimacy between the deceased Natthi Mallaiah and Accused No.4 (Wife of A.1) and accordingly, A1 to A4 committed his murder, A1 stabbed the
11 of 23 XI Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC)
RR District, at Medchal
SC 562 of 2016
deceased with a knife twice on the right side of the waist; A4 sprinkled red chilli powder on the eyes of the deceased; A2 and A3 along with A1 dragged the deceased under Babul trees; A2 beat the deceased on his back side by folding it with an axe;
A3 tried to tie his legs with a rope to a tree; A2 and A3 caught hold the deceased forcibly and then A1 slit the throat of the deceased with a knife for more than half and A4 observed the surroundings by standing near culvert and after confirming his death, A1 removed the purse from his back pocket of the pant and cell phone of the deceased from his shirt pocket; A1 to A4 went to the house of Linga Anjaneyulu (LW.14); A1 and A3 washed their blood stained clothes; A1 changed his clothes by wearing the clothes of his brother-in-law; A1 hidden the knife and axe and threw away purse and clothes of the deceased; A1 gave Samsung cell phone of the deceased to A3, who in turn threw away SIM by breaking into pieces and kept the cell phone with A3 and caused disappearance of the evidence. In order to prove the said allegations, the Prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 19.
13.As seen from the record that PW.1 is a Village Revenue Assistant of Medchal
Revenue office, who after receiving information about dead body proceeded to the scene and found the dead body of one male person under Bubble trees in a pool of blood in prone condition with a deep cut injury on his neck. As per PW.1 some unknown persons might have killed him, and accordingly, he gave complaint to the police, which is marked as Ex.P.1. PWs.2 and 3 being Circumstantial witnesses
12 of 23 XI Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC)
RR District, at Medchal
SC 562 of 2016
deposed in similar lines stating that some unknown persons might have killed the deceased. PW.4 is the Photographer and as per his version, on dt.15.08.2015, as per the request of the Police of Medchal, he took some photographs of the scene and dead body of the deceased at the outskirts of road leading from Gowdavally to
Medchal. But, however, the said photographs are not marked for want of CD.
14.PW.5 being one of the panch witnesses for Scene of offence-cum-seizure panchanama deposed that the Police have conducted Scene of offence-cum-seizure panchanama, drew rough sketch and seized MO.1 to MO.5 from the scene of offence under cover of panchanama. But he did not speak about conducting of Inquest
Panchanama. During cross-examination of PW.5, it is elicited that MO.2/Charm
Cigaretee Packet cover shows that it was manufactured in the year 2021 (even before the alleged date of commission of offence), so also MO.3 match box. It is the evidence of PW.5 that the police have drafted the contents of scene of offence-cum- seizure panchanama in handwriting and subsequently it was got typed in Police
Station, took print out and obtained their signatures. PW.11 is co-panch and he deposed that the police have also conducted inquest panchanama under Ex.P.9.
15.It is pertinent to mention here that PW.6 being the younger brother of the deceased; PW.8 being the wife of the deceased; PW.7, PW.9, PW.10 and PW.12 being material witnesses did not support the case of prosecution and turned hostile.
13 of 23 XI Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC)
RR District, at Medchal
SC 562 of 2016
16.PW.13 and PW.14 being Village Revenue Officers, Official witnesses supported the case of prosecution to some extent and deposed that the accused persons have confessed their guilt and seized material objects under Seizure report under Ex.P.12. A perusal of record shows that confession-cum-seizure panchanama of A1 was held on dt.24.08.2015, at 07.15 hours; confession-cum-seizure panchanama of A2 was held on the same day at 08.20 hours; confession-cum-seizure panchanama of A3 was held on the same day at 09.15 hours; confession-cum-seizure panchanama of A4 was held on the same day at 11.30 hours; and in pursuance thereof on the same day Seizure report was conducted at Laxmidas garden, Nampally
Public garden, Hyderabad. Thus, on dt.24.08.2015, panchanamas were conducted from 7.15 am through out the day and there is no mention of time on seizure report to disclose at what time it was conducted. Whereas, PW.13 and PW.14 gave contra evidence in connection with time of conducting panchanamas. PW.13 stated that on dt.24.08.2015, at 10.00 p.m., the police have conducted panchanamas; whereas
PW.14 deposed that on dt.24.08.2015, when he was present in the office, as per the instructions of Mandal Revenue Officer, he went to Police Station Medchal to act as panch witness. The evidence of PW.13 and PW.14 is absolutely silent as to where seizure report was conducted. During cross-examination, PW.14 deposed that
Mandal Revenue Officer gave instructions to him at 10.30 a.m. and as per the instructions, they went to police station and remained in police station for about one
14 of 23 XI Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC)
RR District, at Medchal
SC 562 of 2016
and half hour and put their signatures and left the police station. PW.13 and PW.14 never stated that in pursuance of confessional statements, accused led them to
Laxmidas garden, Nampally, Hyderabad. Thus, the evidence of PW.13 and PW.14 is not believable to prove the alleged seizure of material objects. Further, their evidence is not corroborated by any other independent witness.
17.PW.15 is assistant to investigating officer, who apprehended Accused No.4 at
Nampally, Hyderabad and brought her to Police Station, Medchal and produced
before the investigating officer. PW.16 is the Medical Officer, who conducted
autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued Postmortem Examination
Report, which is marked as Ex.P.13. During cross-examination, PW.16 admitted that as per Column No.6 of Ex.P.13, identification marks of the deceased are not visible and that the dead body was in decomposed state.
18.PW.17 is the then Sub-Inspector of Police of PS Medchal, who apprehended
Accused persons A1 to A3 at Nampally, Hyderabad and brought them to Police
Station, Medchal and produced before PW.18. PW.18 is the investigating officer, who did the entire investigation, except filing of charge sheet. PW.19 is the second investigating officer, who filed charge sheet against the accused.
19. As per the evidence supra, there are no direct eye-witnesses. The entire case of the Prosecution is basing upon the Circumstantial evidence. In Sharad
15 of 23 XI Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC)
RR District, at Medchal
SC 562 of 2016
Birdichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in AIR 1984 SC 1622, dealing with the evidence basing upon Circumstantial evidence, framed the following five golden principles of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence:- i.the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established; ii.the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty; iii.the circumstances should be of conclusive nature and tendency; iv.they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; v.there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
20.It is settled law that in case of Babu V. State of Kerala, reported in 2010(2)
ALD (Crl.) 880 (SC), wherein it was held that in the case of Circumstantial evidence, proof of motive is necessary and essential. In the case of State of Andhra Pradesh
V. Thuraka Dasaiah and another, reported in 2011(1) ALD (Crl.) 443 (AP), wherein it was held that the Circumstantial evidence, even if it is taken as true, at best, it gives rise to a suspicion that the accused might have committed the murder of the deceased. Suspicion, however strong cannot take the place of the legal proof, by relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Giant Mahtani V. State of
16 of 23 XI Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC)
RR District, at Medchal
SC 562 of 2016
Maharashtra, reported in AIR 1971 SC 1898, wherein it was held “…….But according to the system of jurisprudence which we follow, conviction cannot be based on suspicion nor on the conscience of the Court being normally satisfied about the complicity of the accused person….”
21.In view of above settled legal position, now it has to be seen whether the
Prosecution could prove in establishing the chain of circumstances to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Admittedly, the complaint was lodged against unknown offenders. PWs.6 and 8 being close relatives of the deceased did not state in their evidence as to who is responsible for the death of the deceased
N.Mallaiah and what is the motive behind the crime. There are no eye-witnesses to the alleged offence. PW.7, PW.9, PW.10 and PW.12 being material witnesses did not support the case of prosecution. The seizure of material objects is not proved beyond all reasonable doubts. Further, PW.18 being the investigating officer does not know whether Dandakadiyam of the deceased was deposited before the Court or not, which is one of the important circumstances to complete the chain.
22.In the case of State of Rajasthan V. Bhup Singh 1, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed the following as the conditions prescribed in Section 27 of Indian Evidence
Act, 1872 for unwrapping the cover of ban against admissibility of statement of accused to police:- 1(1997)10 SCC 675
17 of 23 XI Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC)
RR District, at Medchal
SC 562 of 2016
(1) a fact should have been discovered in consequence of the information received from the accused; (2) he should have been accused of an offence; (3) he should have been in the custody of a police officer when he supplied the information; (4) the fact so discovered should have been deposed to by the witness. The Court observed that if these conditions are satisfied, that part of the information given by the accused which led to such recovery gets denuded of the wrapper of prohibition and it becomes admissible in evidence.
23.In view of above settled legal position, the Prosecution has failed to prove the seizure of material objects beyond all reasonable doubts.
24.Admittedly the death of the deceased Natthi Mallaiah is not in dispute. The evidence of PW.16 coupled with Postmortem examination report Ex.P.13 clearly proves the same. But, however, the Prosecution has failed to link up all the circumstances to connect the accused for the alleged offence, more particularly failed to establish the motive behind the alleged offence.
25.It is settled law that in case of Pankaj V. State of Rajasthan 2 it was held that though motive is not sine qua non for the conviction of the accused, the effect of not proving motive raises a suspicion in the mind of the Court. In the present case, it appears that the theory behind motive has been given after much thought process. It 2(2016)16 SCC 192
18 of 23 XI Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC)
RR District, at Medchal
SC 562 of 2016
is a well-settled principle of law that when the genesis and the manner of the incident is doubtful, the accused cannot be convicted. Inasmuch as the prosecution has failed to establish the circumstances in which the accused were alleged to have attacked the deceased, the entire story deserves to be rejected. When the evidence produced by the prosecution has neither quality nor credibility, it would be unsafe to rest conviction upon such evidence. After having considered the entire material on record thoroughly, this Court finds that the evidence on record in the case is not sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused. In such circumstances, the accused are entitled for acquittal under benefit of doubt.
26.In view of my above discussion, this Court holds that the Prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 120-B, 302, 201 r/w 34 of IPC and the benefit of doubt can be extended against the accused. Hence, the point in question is answered accordingly and the Accused Nos.1 to 4 are entitled for acquittal for the charged offences.
27.IN THE RESULT, the Accused Nos.1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offence under Section 120-B, 302, 201 r/w 34 of IPC and they are hereby acquitted under
Section 235(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure. MO.1/Net cash of Rs.4000/- (Rs.Four thousand only); MO.11/Cellkon Cell phone; MO.12/Samsung Phone
GTC5310; MO.13/Samsung cell phone shall be confiscate to State after lapse of
19 of 23 XI Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC)
RR District, at Medchal
SC 562 of 2016
appeal time; and MOs.2 to 11 (i.e.,Charm Cigarette packet, Match box (ship), House key (Bajaj Company), one Handkerchief (black and yellow stripes), one key chain, two pieces of rope made with coconut substance, one pair of paragaon chappal, knife and axe) shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time. The bail bonds of the accused and surety bonds shall stay in force for six months from this date.
Typed in my personal laptop, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court, on this the 29 th day of April, 2022.
XI Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC) RR District: At Medchal
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED-
(On behalf of Prosecution)
PW.1Sri. Janga Bhaskar – VRA, Medchal/De facto complainant
PW.2Sri. K. Srinivas – Circumstantial Witness
PW.3Sri. M. Praveen Kumar – Circumstantial Witness
PW.4Sri.T. Mahinpal Reddy – Photographer
PW.5Sri.G.Venkatreddygari Jeevan Reddy – Panch witness for Observation-cum-Seizure Panchanama & Inquest
PW.6Sri. N. Mallesh – Younger brother of the deceased – Circumstantial witness
PW.7 Sri. Ch. Shiva Nagaiah – Friend of A.1 – Circumstantial witness
PW.8 Smt. N.Buchamma – Wife of the deceased – Circumstantial witness
20 of 23 XI Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC)
RR District, at Medchal
SC 562 of 2016
PW.9Sri. S.Mahesh – Auto driver – Circumstantial witness
PW.10Sri. L.Anjaneyulu – Brother-in-law of A.1/brother of A.4 – Circumstantial witness
PW.11Sri. P.Vishnu - Panch witness for Observation-cum-Seizure Panchanama & Inquest
PW.12Smt. Ch. Jhansi – Neighbour of PW.10
PW.13Sri.M.Sanjeev Reddy – Panch witness for confession-cum-seizure of A1 to A3; confessional statement of A4
PW.14Sri. V. Naresh - Panch witness for confession-cum-seizure of A1 to A3; confessional statement of A4
PW.15Kum.A.R.Shalini Kumari, WPC 7188 – apprehended Accused No.4
PW.16Dr.Ch.Laxman Rao – conducted autopsy and issued PME Report
PW.17Sri.G.Pavan Kumar SI of Police – Apprehended A1 to A3
PW.18Sri.K.Shashank Reddy – First Investigating Officer
PW.19Sri.S.Rajasekhar Reddy – Second Investigating Officer (On behalf of Defence) -NIL- EXHIBITS MARKED:- (On behalf of Prosecution)
Ex.P.1 Complaint
Ex.P.2 Scene of offence cum seizure panchanama
Ex.P.3 Rough Sketch
Ex.P.4161 CrPC statement of PW.6
Ex.P.5161 CrPC statement of PW.7
Ex.P.6161 CrPC statement of PW.8
Ex.P.7161 CrPC statement of PW.9
21 of 23 XI Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC)
RR District, at Medchal
SC 562 of 2016
Ex.P.8161 CrPC statement of PW.10
Ex.P.9Inquest Panchanama
Ex.P.10161 CrPC statement of PW.12
Ex.P.11Relevant portion of confession-cum-seizure panchanama of A1
Ex.P.12Seizure Report
Ex.P.13Postmortem Examination Report
Ex.P.14First Information Report
Ex.P.15FSL Report (On behalf of defence) -NIL-
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:-
MO.1-Net cash of Rs.4000/-
MO.2-Charm Cigarette packet
MO.3-Match Box (Ship)
MO.4-House key (Bajaj Company)
MO.5-One Handkerchief (Black and Yellow)
MO.6-One key chain
MO.7-Two pieces of rope made with coconut substance
MO.8-One pair of Paragon Chappal
MO.9-Knife
MO.10-Axe
MO.11-Cell phone of Celkon Company
MO.12-Samsung Phone GTC 5310
MO.13-Samsung phone
XI Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC) RR District: At Medchal
22 of 23 XI Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC)
RR District, at Medchal
SC 562 of 2016
23 of 23 XI Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC)
RR District, at Medchal