1
SC No.79 of 2022
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
AT BHONGIR.
Present:- Smt.K.Maruthi Devi, I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Bhongir.
(Dated this the 28th day of March, 2024)
SC.NO. 79 OF 2022
(Cr.No.279/2020 of P.S. Bhongir town)
Name and description The State through the Inspector of Police, of the complainant:PS Bhongir town. Name and description Are Kumar @ Chinnu, S/o: Venkanna, Age: of the accused:27 years, Occ: Security Guard, present R/o: Nandi Nagar, Road No.14, Banjarahills, Hyderabad, N/o: H. No. 1-80, Darmagadda thanda, Peddamaduru colony, Devaruppala Mandal, Jangam District. Offences charged:Section 302 of IPC
Plea of the accused:Pleaded not guilty.
Finding of the Court:Found guilty
Sentence or Order :In the result, the Accused is found guilty for the offence punishable U/s. 302 of IPC and he is convicted U/s.235(2) Cr.P.C and sentencedtoundergoRigorous Imprisonment for a period of LIFE and shall pay Rs.1,000/- for the offence Under Section 302 of IPC and in default to pay fine he shall suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of 6 months. MOS 1 to 15, Mo.17 to 21, Mo.23 to 25 shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time. MO16 and 22 shall be return to its original owners after proper identification and acknowledgment after expiry of appeal time. Since the children of deceased ie., two daughters and one son are not having parents. Therefore, they are victims they 2
SC No.79 of 2022
have no financial capacity to lead their life. Under such circumstances they are entitled for compensation amount of Rs.5 lakhs each, U/sec. 357-A of Cr.P.C.
This session’s case is coming before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri.V.Damodhar Reddy Public Prosecutor for the State, Sri.S.Ravi Kumar, Advocate for the Accused and after having stood over for consideration today the Court made the following:
:: JUDGMENT ::
01. The Inspector of Police, Bhongir town filed charge sheet against accused for the offence under Section 302 of IPC with the allegations as under.
02.The brief facts of the prosecution case from the charge sheet is as follows:-
(a)On 12.11.2020 the complainant Chowdaboina Keerthana lodged a petition at Bhongir town police station stating that her mother
Chowdaboina Laxmi had three children, her father died 18 years ago when she was a child. Since then, her mother has being taking care of them. They are all living at Nandinagar, Banjarahills, Hyderabad. There was acquaintance developed to her mother with their village Aare Kumar about 2 years ago and since then, he used to visit their house frequently.
Since last 2 months he used to harass her mother mentally and physically. Therefore her mother used to avoid him. On 11.11.2020 said
Kumar took her mother away saying camouflage words that they can talk together, but her mother did not return home till to the night. Then her sister Kranthi called to her mother over mobile but her mother mobile 3
SC No.79 of 2022
phone was found switched off. Night at about 2.30 a.m., she was informed by her grandmother over phone that police have informed that her mother died at Bhongir. Immediately she arrived Bhongir on 12.10.2020 at 7.00 a.m she came to know through the police her mother dead body is in mortuary of Government hospital, Bhongir. She rushed there and identified the dead body as her mother. She also found bleeding injuries that cut injury on neck and an injury on head caused by hitting with a stone. She further added that Aare Kumar took her mother into the road side bushes of Warangal- Hyderabad High way in the limits of Bhongir and killed her mother by cutting throat and hitting head with stone. Hence the complaint.
(b). Basing on the contents of the above complaint, LW32 having
additional charge of Bhongir town police station registered the case in Cr.
No. 279/2020, U/Sec. 302 of IPC and took up the investigation.
(c)During the course of investigation LW-32 examined and recorded the statement of LW1, rushed to the mortuary of Govt. Hospital, Bhongir and found the dead body of woman with cut injuries on throat and bleeding injury on head. Visited the scene of offence along with the panchas LW18 and LW19 and observed the scene of offence and conducted the scene of offence and seizure panchanama and drawn rough sketch.
4
SC No.79 of 2022
(d) The LW24 the SI of Finger print Bureau also visited the scene of offence and collected and developed finger prints from the beer bottles.
Later all these material were seized before the panchas 18 and 19.
(e)LW32 along with LW18 and 19 visited the visited the mortuary and conducted seizure panchanama and seized some hair from the hands of the deceased in the presence of Lws18 and 19. Later, Lw32 secured the presence of panchas Lw20 and LW21 held inquest over the dead body of the deceased, also examined the recorded the statements of other blood relatives ie., LW2 to LW5 and held inquest over the dead body.
(f).LW25 the medical officer conducted autopsy and preserved the dead body has been handed over to the complainant for the last rites.
LW32 examined and recorded the statements of LW6 and LW7 and also recorded the statement of LW8 who photographed the scene by LW32.
Subsequently, the Lw33 who was on leave returned and took up the investigation of this case from Lw32 and investigated into.
(g).As per the instructions of Lw33 LW9 to 11 traced out the accused on 15.11.2020. The accused was in the possession of a bag was brought to the police station and produced before the Lw33. The LW33 taken the custody of the Accused and secured the presence of two official panch witnesses LW22 and Lw23, recorded the confession of accused and he confessed to have committed this offence and also seized one Samsung
Galaxy Tab having SIM No. 8991 4901 9008, IMEI No. 3521 5509 1717 5
SC No.79 of 2022
815/01 and mobile No. 7093977924, one Samsung SM-17 01F/DS cell phone having IMEI No. 352719/09/622493/5, 352720/09/622493/3 and a gray colour bag having blood stained pant and shirt from his possession.
(h). The Investigating Officer, LW33 also examined and recorded the statements of the LW9 to 11 who apprehended the accused and produced the Accused before the court for judicial remand on 15.11.2020.
(i).LW33 visited the Vivera hotel situated on NH 163 by pass road and recorded the statements of hotel cashier Lw12 and the Auto Rikshaw driver LW13. Thereafter, the LW33 copied the collected CC footage into
DVD. The LW31 conducted the Test of Identification parade of Accused on 7.1.2021 in sub-Jail, Bhongir and the witnesses LW12 and Lw13 have identified the Accused in identification parade.
(j).Viscera of the deceased was deposited at FSL Hyderabad vide SFSL (TS) 8668 TOX/3477/2020 and K. Ravi Kumar Goud, the Asst. Director analyzed and opined that item 1 to 4 are analyzed but no poisonous substance is found in them.
(k).The material objects viz., 1) Blood soaked earth, 2) control earth,
3) Blood stained stone, 4) Super max blade, 5) cotton towel, 6) two disposable glasses which were seized from the scene of offence, 7) pink colour cotton kurtha, 8) cotton pyjama, 9) cotton chunni, 10) underwear,
11) Bra which were seized from the dead body of the accused, 12) Jeans pant and 13)sleeved shirt which were seized from the bag of the Accused 6
SC No.79 of 2022
from his possession were deposited at FSL vide File No.SER/1849/2020 with a request to find blood and DNA.
(l).LW26 the Assistant Director, FSL examined the material objects 1 to 13 and opined that, “The item No.1 to 13 are examined. Human blood is detected on item No.s 1,3 and 5 to 13. Blood group of blood stain on item No.5 to 13 is of ‘B’ blood group. Blood group of blood stains on item
No.s 1 and 3 could not be determined. Blood is not detected on item
No.4. Blood is not detected on item No.2 which is received as control for item No.1.
(m). As per the above report, it was noticed that the blood stains found on the deceased clothes, accused clothes and the blood soaked earth, towel, disposable glasses is human blood and one and the same belonging to the blood group ‘B’. It proves that the blood of the deceased was sprinkled out from her throat and head while the Accused committing murder and fallen on the pant and shirt of accused and also the deceased clothes and scene of offence.
(n).LW27 the Asst. Director of FSL examined the item No.s5 to 13 and opined that, “DNA extracted from item No.s 5 to 13 are subjected to
Autosomal STR analysis by using Global filer kit. There is no amplifiable
DNA yiled from item No.8,9,10, 11 and 12. The DNA profiles obtained from tiem No.s 5,6 and 7 and compared with the DNA profile obtained from item No.13. The allelic pattern of item No.s 5, 6 and 7 matched with allelic pattern of item No.13. The Autosomal STR analysis indicates that 7
SC No.79 of 2022
the blood stains on source of item No.5 and 6 (Towel and disposable glasses seized from the scene of crime) and the source of item No.7 (Kurtha of deceased) are matching with the DNA profile of the source of
No.13 (shirt seized from the accused) and conclusively proves they are of same biological origin. As per the DNA report, it was proved that the blood of the deceased fallen on the clothes of accused while committing murder by the Accused.
(o).The hair which was seized from the hands of the deceased got it deposited at FSL Hyderabad vide file No. DNA/293/2020 for developing
DNA profile and to preserve for further comparison. The accused arrested on 15.11.2020 and recorded the confessional statement.
(p).LW27 the Asst. Director of FSL, developed the DNA profile of the
Accused blood sample and compared with the DNA profile of hair and opined that ‘The Autosomal STR analysis indicates that the source of item
No.1 of DNA/293/2020 (Hair stands seized at mortuary room from the hands of Deceased) is matching with the DNA profile of Are Kumar @
Chinna (Source of item No.1 of DNA/58/2021) and conclusively proves that they are of same biological origin. DNA report also proves that the hair seized from the hands of the deceased belongs to Accused hair. Also proved that the deceased struggled with the Accused while he committing murder and caught his head hair with her hands. As a result, the hair of the Accused came into the fist of deceased.
8
SC No.79 of 2022
(q)The doctor LW25 who conducted PME over the dead body of the deceased has issued PME report and opined over the cause of death that “The cause of death to the best of his knowledge and belief was cut throat injury”.
(r)The finger print expert Lw24 visited the scene of offence and collected the chance prints from the beer bottles and compared the chance prints with the Accused finger prints and furnished his report vide
C.No. 04/V/SOC/BNGR/FPU/RCK/2020, Dt: 22.11.2020 that “on comparison the unsolved photo chance print marked “A” in crime cited above is found identified with the Right ringer finger impression marked “S4” on FP slip of Are Kumar @ Chinnu.
(s).On the requisition of LW33 the DCP Yadadri-Bhongir zone addressed a letter to LWs28, 29, 30 to furnish the CAF, CDR of mobile Nos.
7093977924 (Accused), 9391213246 (deceased), 8978883585 (LW12) and 9908558107 (LW13) along with 65 (B) certificate. The LW29 furnished the CAF, CDR of mobile Nos. 7093977924 (Accused) and 9908558107 (LW13) along with 65 (B) certificate. LW28 furnished the
CAF, CDR of deceased mobile No.9391213246 and along with 65 (B) certificate. LW30 furnished the CAF, CDR of Vivera hotel cashier LW12
Mobile No. 8978883585 along with 65 (B) certificate. After completion of the investigation, the investigation Officer has filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences U/sec. 302 of IPC.
9
SC No.79 of 2022
03. On appearance of the accused before this court, charge was framed against accused for the offence under Section 302 of IPC. The charges were read-over and explained to the accused, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried as per law.
04.In order to substantiate its allegations against the accused, the prosecution has adduced the evidence of PW1 to PW24 and Ex.P1 to
Ex.P38 and MO1 to 24 are marked.
05.On closure of prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined u/s.313 of Cr.P.C with reference to the incriminating evidence appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, he denied such allegation and reported no defence evidence on his behalf in this case.
06.Heard both sides.
07.On consideration of the entire facts of the prosecution case, evidence let in and the arguments, the points that arise for consideration are:
1) Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of
the accused for the offence U/sec.302 of IPC
beyond reasonable doubt?
08. POINT :
On behalf of Prosecution PW1 to PW24 are examined and Ex.P1 to
P38 and Mo1 to 24 are marked.
09.PW1, 2 and 4 are the children of the deceased and PW3 is the father of the deceased. PW1 lodged complaint on 11.10.2020 at 8.00 a.m her mother went out and same was stated to her by PW2 that she 10
SC No.79 of 2022
asked about her mother where she was going then she stated that she has to talk with Accused and she left house and went with the Accused and as per the evidence of PW1 that, on that of incident her mother not returned to the house and PW1 and 2 and 4 went to police Banjara hills and lodged complaint under woman missing in the intervening of night at about 2.30 a.m, his grand-father made phone call to them and he enquired about his mother, then his brother informed the accused taken away his mother with him. Later, the grand- father PW3 informed them that his mother was murdered on the Warangal high way towards
Hyderabad ie., at Bhongir high way, his mother dead body was found in the bushes and instructed to come to the Bhongir on the next day morning. Accordingly they went to the Bhongir police station on the next day morning. PW2 also stated on the same lines.
10.PW3 grand-father of the PW1, 2 and 4 stated that her daughter died on the on 12.11.2020 at the outskirts of Bhongir town and he came to know through his Saprach that she was killed by unknown persons.
The same was informed to PW1,2 and 4 and his grand-children stated they ranged their mother mobile phone and it was kept switch-off.
11.PW4 is the last person who saw his mother with the Accused in his chief examination he stated that on that day he was in the house and he saw the accused taken away his mother with the Accused, but his mother did not returned to the house till the evening. Then he made a call to his mother but the phone was switched off then he lodged the complaint 11
SC No.79 of 2022
against the Accused. Then PW3 called them at mid night then they enquired about his mother. Then PW3 enquired whether his mother is in the house, then he informed to PW3 that his mother left with the accused.
Then Pw3 revealed that the sarpanch informed him that one lady dead body was found on the high way of Bhongir and asked them to come to
PS Bhongir in the early hours. Accordingly, they went to the police station, Bhongir in the morning hours and PW3 and LW5 his grandmother also came to the police station. Then the police took them to the
Mortuary, Area Hospital Bhongir. On seeing the dead body they identified their mother.
12.At this juncture the counsel for the Accused vehemently argued that
PW2 in his cross-examination on the day of incident she alone was present in the house, except her no other persons were present. As per the evidence of PW4 he stated that he was in the house and he saw the
Accused, but he has not stated his sister PW2 was also present in the house there are some contradictions between PW2 and PW4 but there are some minor discrepancies.
13.PW5 is the police constable who is working under Bhongr town he stated that on 11.11.2020 he along with LW7 Manda Jangaiah conducted blue court duty at about 2.00 a.m while they are discharging their duty on the high way they found that one person coming from bushes who was male person he was under suspicious manner the person fund on the national high way which was leads to Warangal high 12
SC No.79 of 2022
way, but on seeing them he fled away on suspicious they went to the bushes from where the unknown person came out. The distance from high way to the bushes is about 500 meters. They found one lady with bleeding injuries on her face and neck and near to her there is one bag was found. It was intimated to the CI of Police, Bhongir town immediately after that he instructed them to stop there, later police called ambulance, shifted to Area Hospital, Bhongir on searching the bag they found Aadhar card of deceased , in the said Aadhar card they found the address of the deceased and she belongs to Dharmagadda Sarpanch.
PW5 know the sarpanch of Dharmagadda thanda and same stated to the
CI of police and CI of police asked having phone number of Sarpanch.
Then, he has given the phone number of Dharmagadda sarpanch.
Immediatley, their CI of Police make a phone call to the Sarpanch,
Dharmagada Thanda and their CI of Police asked the sarpach about the deceased. Then he revealed that he know about the deceased.
14.Further their CI of Police asked him whether her relatives are living in the that Thanda, then sarpanch revealed that her father was living in the said Thanda. Then their CI of police make a phone call to the father of the deceased and informed about the deceased. Subsequently, the PW4 made a phone call to PW1, 2, 3 and informed about the death of their mother.
15.In the cross-examination, of PW5 he stated that CI of police had recorded his statement at Crime scene at bout 3.30 A.M. Where as in the cross-examination\ of PW23 he recorded statment of PW5 at police station there is inconsistency stated between PW5 and PW23, but main case is that PW5 informed to the CI of police, Bhongir town, that he 13
SC No.79 of 2022
known Dharmagadda thanda and CI of police immediately make a phone call to Sarpanch, Dharmagada thanda and then Sarpanch revealed the same to deceased father and same was informed to children of deceased, except it where the statement was recorded is not criteria.
16.PW6 who is photographer he stated that, on 11/12.12.2020 the CI of police Bhongir CI of police called and asked him at about 2.00 a.m to 3.00 a.m and asked him to snap the photographs near highway road which leads to Hyderabad. When he reached to the crime scene he found
CI of Police and two constables, with his camera there is flash on that he took photographs of one female dead body and the location of the crime scene and CI of Police asked him it was urgent. Then he immediately handed over the photographs to the CI of Police in the morning hours.
17.In the cross-examination, he stated that, he went to the crime scene at about 2.30 A.M and he was stayed at the crime scene for about 20 minutes. This is suspicious that after seeing the dead body by the police constables, CI of police alerted and he called photographer to took snaps of scene of offense at the dead body.
18.PW7 who is another police constable who caught hold the accused on 15.11.2020 as per the instruction of LW33/A. Sudhaker and he informed that one person i.e., Arey Kumar was involved in murder case and asked them to trace out him. He along with LW09/P. Anjaiah and
LW11/Ch. Sampath kumar went to Yadagirigutta and they started searching about Accused. Then they found one person near Gayatri
Hotel which the road was leading to Pattagutta in suspicious manner.
Then LW9/P. Anjaiah inquired that person and he revealed his name as
Arey Kumar. Then they apprehended him and brought him to the police station and produced before LW33/A. Sudhakar, CI of Police.
19.Then on interrogation, he found that he was in mood of confession and he identified said person in the court hall. Later PW24 secured two panch witnesses and in their presence LW33 recorded confession statement of Accused.
14
SC No.79 of 2022
20.In the cross-examination he stated that they went to the
Yadagirigutta on their Bolero vehicle and in the morning hours front of the
Gayatri Hotel less person are present but this person was found suspicious. When they apprehended the accused he was carrying one grey colour bag.
21.PW8 who is the cashier at Vivera hotel, Bhongir he stated that, he cannot identify the accused so many people come to their hotel. At about 2 years back the police came to hotel and recorded his statement. He has not disclosed any thing to the police about the accused and other.
Further he stated that, in their hotel there are breakfast, lunch and dinner are providing and also having lodging facility at the request of the costumers they will provide vehicle. He do not remember whether the accused asked him to provide him auto. In their hotel at reception counter there is CC TV footage. At this juncture, the Add. Public
Prosecutor requested the court to declare the witness as hostile and permit him to cross-examine the witness and nothing was elicited from the mouth of PW8.
22.On 24.1.2024 this court recalled the PW8 as per the orders vide
Crl. MP. No. 887/2023, Dt: 5.1.2024 and in the chief-examination on 07.01.2021 the police called him and took him to Sub-Jail, Bhongir to identify Arae Kumar. Accordingly, he went to the Sub-Jail, Bhongir in the presence of LW31/Smt. Prameelajain, who is the Addl. JFCM, Ramannapet and he identified the Arae Kumar. Later the PW22 obtained his signature
Ex.P32 is the statement of witness before LW31. In the cross- examination he stated that the police not shown the photograph of the accused.
23.In this juncture the counsel for Accused relied upon Ramadhar
Thakur And ors Vs. State of Bihar 1988 CRIL J264 “ Whether the accused can be convicted on the evidence of Magistrate of Magistrate holding the Test Idenfication parade when the witness who had identified the accused at that Test Identification parade failed to identify him in 15
SC No.79 of 2022
court at the time of trial is substantive question which has arisen for support” . He stated that it was held that When the witness fails to identify the accused in Court, there remains no evidence at all on which a conviction can be based and in such a situation the Test Identification
Parade cannot be of any assistance to the prosecution.
24.On the other hand the Prosecution also relied upon Rama Krushna
Vs State of Maharastra it was held that, “It is equally settled law that the evidnece of a hostile witness would not be totally rejected if spoken in favour of the prosecution or the accused, but it can be subjected to close scrutiny and that portion of the evidnece which is consistent with the case of prosecution or defence may be accepted “See also Gurpreet
Singh V/S – For the reasons aforementioned, there is no merit in this appeal, which is dismissed”. In the present case also PW8 and 9 also turned hostile but they are re-examined on 24.1.2024 after examination of PW22 in the chief he stated that the police called them on 7.1.2021 and later Magistrate conducted Test Identification Parade and they identified the Accused Are Kumar and Magistrate obtained their signatures on Ex.P32 and P33. Though they turned hostile in the open court but they are not stated that they did not remember the Accused, which clearly shows that the presence of Accused was person in the Test
Identification parade which was conducted by PW22 and Ex.P32 and
P33 the signatures speaks the presence of Accused was established that through Ex.P32 and P33 which was obtained by PW22. Therefore, PW8 and 9 are identified the Accused.
25.The prosecution also relied upon Vanka Narsimha Murthy VS
State of Andhra Pradesh “merely because the witness turned hostile in his cross-examination, the accused is not entitled for acquittal when the evidence in chief, consistent pointing out the guilt of the accused. The accused might have won over the witnesses due to gap of time in between the chief examination and cross examination, so the same can not be a ground for acquitting the accused." 16
SC No.79 of 2022
26.“In chief, consistent pointing out the guilt of the accused. The accused might have won over the witnesses due to gap of time in between the chief examination and cross examination, so the same can not be a ground for acquitting the accused."
27.“I am afraid that the word used "Hostile Witnesses" has no reasonable historical base. Although the learned A.P.P. has been permitted to put questions in the nature of cross-examination u/s 154 of the Indian Evidence Act, the witness cannot be dubbed as a hostile witness. The description of the word ''hostile witness'' alludes any amount of clarity. The fact remains that they have been put questions in the nature of cross examination by the learned counsel who called them as a witness which is permissible in view of the provisions of section 154 of the
Indian Evidence Act. In such a case, it is now established by a catena of decisions of the Apex court that any part of the statement of the witness, can be taken into consideration. It is not the question of accepting one part in preference to other part of the deposition of the self-same witness.
But when the question of appreciation comes, the court has to seek to reconcile the said statement and try to sift the evidence. Merely because a statement of witness is false to some extent and true to the remaining extent, there is no law which says that the entire statement of the witness shall have to be discarded.
28.The facts and circumstances of the above case and present case are similar in nature, though PW8 and 9 are turned hostile. On 4.12.2023 again the prosecution recalled PW8 and 9 and conducted chief and cross-examination. In chief examination they admitted that the signature on TI parade on Ex.P32 and P33. It clinchingly establsihes that, their presence is very much present in TI parade and as per TI parade report they identified the Accused.
29.PW10 who is the house owner of the Accused he stated that he asked the accused that he has no acquittance with him therefore he asked accused to come along with known person. Then the accused came along 17
SC No.79 of 2022
with one lady i.e., deceased/Laxmi who residing four houses from his shop. And she recommended that the accused belongs to her native village. On her recommendation he let out the shop to the accused on
Rs.3,500/- for month. In his cross-examination he stated that, The accused given advance amount of Rs. 7,000/- to his account. Apart from the accused he let out one room back side of the shop to one Salamma.
30.It establishes that there is acquaintance between the Accused and deceased Laxmamma.
31.Pw11 who is the house owner deceased Laxmamma he stated that, at about one year prior to the death of deceased/Laxmi , he has let out the house to the deceased/Laxmi. She has two daughters and one son. Now and then the accused used to visit the house of deceased/Laxmi. Then, he inquired deceased/Laxmi about the accused.
Then she stated the he belongs to her native village. And she disclosed the name of accused as Are Kumar @ Chinna. Subsequently, he came to know that the deceased Laxmi was killed by accused at the outskirts of
Bhongir. The same was published in newspaper. Subsequently he identified the Accused in the court hall, which clearly establishes that, there is relationship between the Accused and deceased.
32.PW12 who is working as Area Officer in Doberman Security
Solutions Pvt. Ltd., who is running this agency since 8 years. He stated that, the Deceased Laxmi used to work in their office for last six years
before her death. Later, he came to know that Deceased Laxmi died.
The Police make a phone call to them and inquired about deceased Laxmi whether she worked in their office and the police came to their office and inquired him. The police asked him about the Muster Roll of their office and the same was handed over to the police with his signature. As per
Muster Roll the deceased Laxmi worked in their office. Ex.P3 is Muster
Roll of Doberman Security Solutions Pvt. Ltd.,. As per Muster Roll on 11.11.2020 and 12.11.2020, Are Kumar and Laxmi are not present.
18
SC No.79 of 2022
33.In the Cross examination he stated that, he used to issue ID cards and also Salary and pay slips to them. It establishes that, the deceased
Laxmi worked under Doberman Security Solutions Pvt. Ltd., and as per
Ex.P4 it is established that the deceased worked under Doberman
Security Solutions Pvt. Ltd.,
34.PW13 who is the Bill collector in Municipality Bhongir, Who acted as co-panch witness for scene of offense he stated that, on 12.11.2020 at 10.00 am Police called him to the Police Station. Then they proceeded to
Squidha Venture, Outer Ring Road Bhongir. They observed the scene of offence with blood stains and other items. They found blood stained earth i.e., MO-1, one stone with blood marks i.e., MO-2,and at a distance of 50 meters 500 ml bud wiser empty beer bottle i.e., MO-11, one Kingfisher beer bottle 650 ml i.e., MO-7,, Haywards empty bottle i.e., MO-8, two disposal glass i.e., MO-6, one cloth carry bag i.e., MO- 12 it consists Supermax blade i.e., MO-3, one Jio Phone tied with SIM card i.e., MO-15, one Aadhar Card it reveals the name of Kumar, one white Kandava with Red boarder i.e., MO-5, One Pink Colour Ladies hand bag, one grey colour shirt i.e., MO-9 and it consists Dobarman Security
Peoples Protection and it consists one Aadhar card it consists the name of
Choudaboina Laxmi (Deceassed), One Kinley water bottle i.e., MO-10,
RamrajCotton Mask i.e., MO-13, Pink Colour Mask i.e., MO-14. Police tried to trace out the finger prints on the above items. The above items are seized by the police in his presence under cover of pancahnama and obtained their signatures. Ex.P5 is the scene of offence cum seizure panchanama and also drawn rough sketch i.e., Ex.P6. From these lines it clearly shows that the deceased as per Mo10 she was worked under
Doberman Security Solutions Pvt. Ltd.,
35.From there they went to Area Hospital, Bhongir and they found one
Female Dead Body and the police seized the cloths of deceased. MO-16 is Pink Colour Top, Floral designed payajama i.e., MO17 and pink colour bra i.e., MO-18. and they found some hairs in the hand of deceased and 19
SC No.79 of 2022
the same was sent to FSL. Police conducted inquest panchanama in their presence, read over to them and obtained their signature. Ex.P7 is inquest panchanama.
36.In his Cross examination he stated that, he received phone call from their Municipal Commissioner at that time he was at his house.
Later he, went to the scene of offence, on his motor bike and he put his signature in the office register. Then, he went to the police station by 9.30 am. One Janaiah and there are three constables are present and as per the commissioner oral instructions to attended before SHO, Bhongir.
37.He went to the scene of offence. Within five to ten minutes their co-panch witness joined with them. There is no general public present.
38.On the other hand, the counsel for Accused, vehemently argued that, there is no such scene of offence was conducted and nothing was seized from the scene of offence and from the dead body. He stated that, he was not stock witness.
39.PW14 who is the co-panch witness for scene of offnece he stated that, on 12.12.2020 the police called him attended him to attend inquest over the deceased Lakshmi and went to the mortuary and observed the dead body of deceased Lakshmi, on right side of head grevious injury and also on the head and they also found blood stains on the nose and there is a cut injury over the throat and later the police recorded the inquest, and obtained his signatures. In his cross-examination, nothing was elicited from the mouth of PW14.
40.PW15 who is the VRO and who is the panch for confession cum seizure panchanama he stated that, on 15.11.2020 on the instructions of their MRO, he and LW23 went to PS, Bhongir Town. There, he found
Town CI, SI and the accused. Police introuduced the accused to them.
The accused stated before him, that he along with deceased came from
Hyderabad and they went to Yadagirigutta and they took one room.
Thereafter they came to Vivera hotel which was situated on Byepass road and they parceled mutton biryani. They had mutton biryani with alcohol 20
SC No.79 of 2022
near to Vivera Hotel. The accused carried one bag which contains three beer bottles and one blade. In the evening hours while the deceased was under the influence of alcohol the accused attacked the deceased with blade and cut her throat and also beat with stone on her head and killed her. Druing the attack he got blood stains on his cloths. After that he changed his dress and put his blood stained cloths in his bag. He stayed till evening in the scene of offence and after that he was walking towards highway in the mean time the police constables suspected him and he again go back to Yadagirigutta. Later the police apperehended the accused and brought him to the police station. They opend the bag which was carried by the accused, then they found blood stained jean pant ie.,
MO-19 and T-shirt i.e., MO-20 and mobile phone of accused i.e., MO-21 the same was seized by the police in their presence and they dictated the statement given by the accused to the police. Later reduced into writing, readover to them and obtained their signatures by going through the contents. Ex.P8 is the confession –cum-recovery pancahanama.
41.From these lines, it clearly establishes that the Accused went along with the deceased and had dinner andlater he attacked on the deceased and cut her throat through one blade and also beat her with stone on her head and killed her. He stayed till evening in the scene of offence and after that he walking towards high way in the mean time the police constables suspected hima and he again go back to Yadagirigutta.
Later, the police apprehended the accused and brought him to the police station. They opened the bag which was carried out by the Accused then they found blood stained jean pant ie., MO20 and T- shirt ie., MO21 and mobile of the Accused ie., Mo22 and it clearly establishes that, the guilt of the Accused . In his cross-examination he stated that, on that day he went to his office by 12.00 pm and he remained at MRO office till evening.
Though, 15.11.2020 is Sunday he attended the office and was totally in his office. On the other hand the counsel for Accused vehemently argued that, he never witnessed the accused and the police shown the accused 21
SC No.79 of 2022
and he identified him and falls on Sunday no Government employee put his signature, but as per the version of PW15 it falls on Sunday he totally in his office and he reveals that there is duty on 15.11.2020.
42.PW16 who is the SI in Finger Print Unit, he stated that, on 12.11.2020 he received a phone call from CI of Police, Bhongir town that one dead body found in suspicious and he requested him to come to the scene of offence at Snigdha Venutre, the highway lead from Hyderabad to
Warngal to collect the finger prints. He along with his team three members went to the scene of offence and he found one beer bottle
Haywards apart from this bottle there are many beer bottles and he developed finger prints on the Haywards beer bottle. I found two finger prints one finger print is unfit for comparison and A print sent to the data base center. He got information that unidentified finger print. On 15.11.2020 they received chance finger prints of accused and this chance print identical with the earlier which was took from the Haywards beer bottle. Then he issued the report and sent to the CI of police, Bhongir town. Ex.P9 is the report of finger print slip of accused which was issued by him. Ex.P10 is the comparison chart showing the identity concerned in
Cr. No. 279/2020 U/sec 302 IPC of Bhongir Town PS. In his cross examination he stated that, there is no official requisition was received by him. In genral the any investigation office informed the message through phone only, on 12.11.2020 at 11.00 am. They remain there for one and half hour. At the time of collecting finger prints the CI of Police, Bhongir and two constables are also present. Is there any fog or water fell on the items they can get finger prints.
43.PW17 who conducted PME over the dead body of the deceased he stated that, on 12.11.2020 he received requisition from PS, Bhongir town to conduct autopsy over dead body of Ch. Lakshmi and he found laceration injuries.
22
SC No.79 of 2022
1) Cut laceration over front of neck on midline measuring about 12x6x6 inches and left side of neck exposing underlying muscles, vessels, trachea and oesophagus.
It clearly shows that, the Accused used sharp weapon ie., blade through which he cut throat
2) Scalp laceration over middle of head measuring 20x20 inches with underlying comminuted fracture of skull bones involving both parietal and occipital bone.
3) A laceration of 2x3 inches at the root of the nose on right side near medial canthus
4) B/l Nasal bones fracture present.
5) A laceratio of 2x2 inches on the left cheek below left eye on maxillary region of face
44.Later he sent viscera to FSL. As per FSL report no poisonous substance found in the viscera samples sent.
45. After receiving of FSL report, he opined the cause of death to the best of his knowledge due cut throat injury. The injury caused sharp edged weapon. Accordingly, is issued PME report.Ex.P11 is FSL report,
Ex.P12 is PME report. Which clearly establishes that the murder held by the Accused.
46.PW18 who is the Assistant Director of FSL, Hyderabad, he stated that, he received requisition from ACP, Bhongir Division Rachakonda along with letter of advise for examination report, he collected the samples and got examined and opined that, Human blood is detected on item No’s 1, 3 and 5 to 13 i.e,
1. A paper parcel containing soil etc with dark brown stains marked as item No.1
2. A paper parcel containing soil etc marked as Item No.2
3. A cloth line cover labelled as Article No. 3 with panch chit containing a small stone with dark brown stains marked as Item No. 3 23
SC No.79 of 2022
4. A cloth line cover labelled as Article No.4 with panch chit containing a zip lock cover a zip lock cover containing a stainless steel balde super max mearsruing 4 cms marked as Item no.4.
5. A cloth line cover labelled as Article No. 5 with panch chist containing a white and red colour cotton towel with dark brown stains marked as item No.5
6. A cloth line cover labelled as Article No.6 with panch chits containing two disposable glass with dark brown stains marked as Item No. 6
7. A cloth line cover labelled as Cr. No. 279/20 bhongir Town PS containing a torn pink clour cotton kurtha with dark brown stains marked as item No.7
8. A cloth line cover labelled as Cr. No. 279/20 bhongir Town PS containing a torn multi colour cotton pyajama with dark brown stains marked as Item No. 8
9. A cloth line cover labelled as Cr. No. 279/20 bhongir Town PS containing a multi colour cotton chunni with dark brow stains marked as item No.9
10.A cloth line cover labelled as Cr. No. 279/20 bhongir Town PS containing a torn sky blue cut underwear with dark brown stains marked as item No.10
11.A cloth line cover labelled as Cr. No. 279/20 bhongir Town PS containing a cloth parcel containing torn pink clour bra with dark brown stains marked as item No.11
12.A cloth line cover labelled as Article No.8 with panch chit contaiing a blue colour jeans pant with with dark brown stains marked as item No.12
13.A cloth line cover labelled as Article No.9 with panch chits containing a brown and white colour checks designfull sleeved shirt with dark brown stains marked as item No.13
47.He opined that, Blood group of blood stain on item No’s 5 to 3 is of ‘B’ blood group. Blood is not detected on item No’s 1 and 3 could not be determined. Blood is not detected on item No.4. Blood is not detected on items No2 which is received as control for item No. 1 on 2 which is received as control for item No.1, accordingly he issued Ex.P13.
48.From these lines it clearly shows that, the human blood was detected on the items.
24
SC No.79 of 2022
49.PW19 who is the Nodal officer, Nodal officer, Bharathi Airtel Limited, stated that, on 09.12.2020 he received requisition from DCP, Yadadri
Bhongir Division to furnish call data record and customer application from the prof of the 9908558107 from 10.11.2020 to 12.11.2020 in connection of Cr. No. 279/2020 of PS, Bhongir Town.
50.Accordingly he submitted call details of above mobile number from 01.07.2020 to 12.11.2020 along with customer application form and it stands in the name of Chodaboina Lakhmi and also issued Section 65–B
Certificate along with covering letter signed by him. Ex.P14 is address a letter to DCP, Yadadri Bhongir Dated :05.02.2021. Ex.P15 is Section 65-
B Certificate and Ex.P16 is customer application form of deceased
Lakshmi. Ex.P17 is the call details of deceased mobile number 9391213246 Dated :11.11.2020. In his cross-examination, he stated that, on Ex.P17 there is no endorsement or seal of their office and they have not produced the call details through pen drive or CD before this court.
51.PW20 who is the Nodal officer, Reliance JIO, he stated that, on 03.06.2021 he received requisition from DCP, Yadadri Bhongir Division to furnish call data record and customer application from the prof of the 7093977924 from 01.07.2020 to 12.11.2020 in connection of Cr. No.
279/2020 of PS, Bhongir Town.
52.Accordingly he submitted call details of above mobile number from 01.07.2020 to 12.11.2020 along with customer application form and it stands in the name of Are Kumar and also issued Section 65–B Certificate along with covering letter signed by him. Ex.P18 is address a letter to
DCP, Yadadri Bhongir. Ex.P19 is Section 65-B Certificate and Ex.P20 is customer application form of accused. Ex.P21 is the call details of accused mobile number 7093977924 from 01.07.2020 to 11.11.2020 (Subject to objection). Call details of accused mobile Number 7093977924 on 11.11.2020 i.e., Ex.P22.
25
SC No.79 of 2022
53.He submitted call details of mobile number 9908558107 from 10.11.2020 to 12.11.2020 along with customer application form and it stands in the name of Md. Javeed and also issued Section 65–B Certificate along with covering letter signed by me. Ex.P23 is address a letter to
DCP, Yadadri Bhongir. Ex.P24 is Section 65-B Certificate and Ex.P25 is customer application form of PW9. Ex.P26 is the call details of MD.
Javeed, on 11.11.2020 .
54.LW29/B.V. Narayanan, Nodal Officer, Airtel Ltd., along with him, he worked in the same organization and identified his signature.
55.He submitted call details of mobile number 8978883585 from 10.11.2020 to 12.11.2020 along with customer application form and it stands in the name of LW14/M. Bhasker Reddy S/o Shiva Ram Reddy and also issued Section 65–B Certificate along with covering letter signed by him. Ex.P27 is address a letter to DCP, Yadadri Bhongir. Ex.P28 is
Section 65-B Certifiate and Ex.P29 is customer application form of LW14.
Ex.P30 is the call details of mobile Number 8978883585 On 11.11.2020.
56.In his cross-examination he stated that, on Ex.P21, 22, 26 and 30 there are no endorsements or seals of their office. Further stated that, the details of mobile phone will be remain in their data base for six months. He stated that the data base will be remain in our data base for one year.
57.As per the version of PW20 the data will be remain in the data base for the one year but the police collected call details from 1.7.2020 to 12.11.2020 ie., 4 months data base. Therefore the objection raised by the counsel for Accused is not maintainable.
58.PW21/Dr.G. Pandu who is the Assistant Director, TSFSL, he stated that, he received one sealed cloth line cover with three seals which are intact and tallying with sample seal in Cr. No. 279/2020 of Bhongir town
PS. The cloth cover labeled as in Cr. No. 279/2020, Bhongir town P.S.
Article -1 found some hairs from the hands of the deceased containing a zip lock cover containing few hair stands marked as Item No.1. At this 26
SC No.79 of 2022
juncture the Investigating Officer obtained permission from the Prl. JFCM,
Bhongir to conduct DNA test of the Accused and accordingly the Prl.
JFCM, Bhongir given permission and at FSL they drawn samples from the
Accused. Later PW21 extracted from Item No.1 is subjected to STR analysis by using global filer kit. A male DNA profile has been generated and recorded from item No.1. On 31.3.2021 he received material from serology department ie., Item No. 5 to 13. DNA extracted from item Nos 5 to 13 are subjected to Autosomal STR analysis by using Global filer kit.
There is no amplifiable DNA yield from item Nos 8,9,10,11 and 12. The
DNA profiles obtained from Items No.s 5,6 and 7 are compared with the
DNA profile obtained from item No. 13. The allelic pattern of items Nos 5, 6 and 7 matches with the allelic pattern of item No.13 In the cross- examination he stated that, he received Item No. 5 to 13 from serology department. He received the samples on 31.03.2021 from serology department. From these lines it clearly shows that, at the time of killing of the deceased the Accused is very much present and DNA matched with the blood stains of the Accused clothes.
59.PW22 who conducted Test Identification parade she stated that, she received requisition from Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalgonda on 28.12.2020 as she was nominated to conduct Test identification parade at
Sub Jail, Bhongir in cr. No. 279/2020, u/Sec. 302 IPC at PS Bhongir
Town.
60. Accordingly she issued summons to the witness PW8 and 9 and fixed the date to conduct Test Identification Parade on 07.01.2021 and accordingly she obtained permission from I Addl. District and Sessions
Judge, Nalgonda.
61.Later on 07.01.2021 she went to Sub Jail, Bhongir and recorded the statements LW12 and 13 (PW8 and 9) and conducted TI parade and
PW8 and 9 identified the Accused. Accordingly, she conducted TI parade and and Ex.P35 is Test identification parade proceedings.
27
SC No.79 of 2022
62. In the cross examination she have been appointed to conduct Test
Identification Parade on 28.12.2020. She received the requisition on 19.12.2020 from CI of Police, Bhongir Town. She enquired LW1 and LW2 whether they have previous with the suspect and they stated have no previous acquaintance with the suspect. As per Chief Judicial Magistrate she conducted Test identification parade.
63.PW23 who is the first Investigating Officer, he stated that, on 12.11.2020 at about 2.15 AM, he received information from Patrolling
Constable, Bhongir town PW5, Lw7/M. Jajaiah that they have seen woman dead body found beside the high way at about 500 meters away from the road, which leads from Hyderabad to Warangal. Upon which he visited the crime scene immediately and called photographer i.e., PW6 and he photographed the scene of offence. Later, he instructed the constable i.e., PW5 and Lw7 to secure two panch witnesses and accordingly, conducted scene of offence panchanama. Later, shifted the dead body to
Area Hospital, Bhognir. Later he came to know that one of the constable i.e., PW5 found the Aadhar card of deceased near the scene of offence.
He knows the Sarpanch of that village. In turn he informed the same to the parents of the deceased. Later informed the children of the deceased.
64.Later on 12.11.2020, PW1 lodged a complaint. Basing on that, he registered a case in Cr. No. 279/2020 U/sec 302 of IPC and issued FIR.
Ex.P36 is the FIR. Later, he examined Pw1 to PW4 and recorded their statement at police station. Later, he visited the crime scene and secured two panch witness i.e., LW18/K. Kumar and PW13 and conducted scene of offence pancahanama in their presences and also drawn rough sketch and also conducted seizure pancahanma in their presence and seized blood stained earth, control earth, Kingfisher beer bottles, Supermax
Blade, Pink Colour bag, white Towel with read board, two disposal glass with blood stained, Hywards beer bottle, greay colour shirt, Kinelye water bottle, two empty budwiser beer bottles, Cloth carrying bag, one Jio
Phone of deceased with SIM card, One Aadhar Card of Accused i.e., MO- 28
SC No.79 of 2022
No.22 , One Aadhdar Card of Deceased i.e., MO-23. Later, he found the cloths of accused in Pink colour bag in which one Grey colour shirt with title Dobarman Security People for protection, one black pant, Ramraj
Cotton one Red colour mask and deceased Aadhar Card .
65.Later, he visited the Area Hospital, Bhongir before the same panch witness, he seized the cloths of deceased i.e., Pink Colour top Panjabi dress and we found some hairs in the Right hand of the deceased between the fingers. Later, he conducted inquest in the presence of
LW20/D. Shanthi and PW14/M. Sailu. During the inquest they found injuries in the column No.7, they are injury on the left cheek, injury on the right side of the nose, the nose was broken, there is cut injury on the throat caused by sharp weapon, there found injury on the head it leads to back side of the head. Later, he subjected the dead body to PME and he handed over the CD file to LW33/K. Sudhakar, CI of Police, Bhongir.
In the cross-examination, he stated that, he along with his driver, went to the scene of offence by 2.30 am directly from his house. He admitted that, Ex.P6 there is no mentioning of date and time. He further stated that, the scene of offence-cum-seizure pancahanama and rough sketch follows time and date. Therefore the explanation given by the
Investigating Officer is not proper.
66.He admitted that, immediately after receiving the information he has not issued FIR, but on receiving the complaint at 9.00 AM he issued
FIR. He admitted that, he has not recorded the statement of Sarpanch from whom the address of deceased obtained. He stated that, he was not available to them.
67.PW24 who is the second Investigating Officer stated that, he received CD file from PW23 on 13.11.2020. He found the investigation done by PW23 on proper lines. He visited the scene of offence and made efforts to apprehend the accused and deputed LW9/ P. Anajaiah, SI of
Police, PW7, LW11/Ch. Sampath Kumar PC 3710. On 15.11.2020 the deputed staff apprehended the accused along with a bag at Yadagirigutta 29
SC No.79 of 2022
in front of Gayatri Hotel at 7.30 AM and brought him to the PS, Bhongir
Town. Later, on interrogation he revealed his name as Are Kuamr @
Chinnu when he was in the mood of confession he secured two panch witness PW15 and LW22/B. Arjun and conducted confession-cum-seizure pancahanama of the accused. Accordingly, he conducted confession-cum-
Seizure pancahanama and the accused confessed that he also received cut injury on his right hand indexing finger while he was cutting the deceased throat with a Supermax blade. We seized one Grey colour bag from the possession of the accused. On search of the bag they found one blue colour jean pant with blood stains and it was labled Sky work, brown
Meron and blue colour mixed colour checks shirts containing blood stains.
One galaxy Tab, Mobile Number 7093977924 SIM No. 899149019008
IMEI No. 352155091717815/01 and another sumsng phone contains blood stains SM-J 701F/DS IMEI No. 352719/09/622493/5, 352720/09/622493/3 and seized under cover pancahanama. Later he effect his arrest duly informing the grounds of the arrest and produced
before the court for judicial remand after medical examination. Later
recorded the statements of LW9/P. Anjaiah, PW7 and LW11/Ch. Sampath
Kumar.
68.Later , he visited the Vivera Hotel situated at NH-163 By-pass road,
Bhongir Town and he examined PW8 and recorded his statement and He also collected CCTV footage from the Vivera Hostel. He verified the footage and found the accused and deceased together entering into the hotel and the accused carrying a bag and visited hotel cash counter at 12.43 pm on 11.11.2020 and from the footage they noticed the accused and deceased left the hotel at 1.04 pm on 11.11.2020. He copied the same in one CD and the same was submitted before the court. MO-24 is
CD. He also recorded the statements of PW10 and PW11 and also recorded the statement of PW12/A Vindoh Kumar, Dobarman Security
Office in which the deceased and accused worked. He also collected 30
SC No.79 of 2022
attendance copy of register of deceased and accused and he found that on the day of incident they were absent.
69.Later, he sent a requisition to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalgonda to depute one Judicial Officer to conduct Test Identification Parade of the accused. Accordingly, CJM, Naglodna appointed PW22/ Prameela Jain and accordingly, she conducted TIP at Sub Jail, Bhongir and she submitted report. He sent the seized articles to FSL, Hyderabad and he received serology report from PW18/G. Swarna Latha and also received report and
DNA from PW21. As per DNA report the hairs which was found in the hands of the deceased was matched with the blood sample of DNA of the accused and they obtained permission from the I ADJ, Nalgonda to collect the blood sample of the accused for DNA Test. The blood stained seized cloths of deceased was matched with the blood stained cloths of the accused. The blood stained earth, the blood soaked towel and disposal glasses are belongs to one and the same. He collected the PME report,
FSL report, before that, he sent a requisition to PW16 to collect the finger print from beer bottles and PW16 collected chance prints from the beer bottle. He compared with the finger prints with those beer bottles and the same was matched. Later, he collected finger print report from PW16/K.
Kishore, SI Finger Print Bureau.
70.On his requisition DCP, Yadadri Bhognir Addressed a letter to
PW19/G. Jithender, Nodal Officer Reliance JIO, LW29/B.V. Narayanan and PW20/Santosh, Nodal Officer, Airtel Limited to furnish CAF, CDR along with 65-B Certificate of accused mobile number 7093977924 and deceased mobile No. 9391213246, PW8 mobile number 8978883585 and
PW9 auto driver mobile No. 9908558107. Accordingly, LW29/B.V.
Narayanan provided CAF, CDR along with 65-B certificate of accused and
PW9. On furnishing the information I found the mobile no. 7093977924 which is registered on the name of Are Kumar/Accused and verifying the
CDRs of the accused it found that 1176 calls, call conversations between 31
SC No.79 of 2022
accused and the deceased mobile No. 9391213246 are noticed since last five months. On the day of incident i.e., on 11.11.2020 the mobile of the accused location are found in Bhongir near by Vivera Hotel and scene of offense between 1.32 PM to 20.33 hours.
71.The accused locations are Geo tag in google map as per the collected CDR of accused and submitted before the court along with charge sheet. Ex.P37 is the Geo Tag (Subject to marked as subject to objection). On verification of CAF of mobile No. 9908558107 of auto driver PW9 which is registered on the name of PW9/Md. Javeed. On verifying the CDRs of PW9 there are incoming calls from PW8/Hotel cashier mobile No. 8978883585 at 12:47:32, 12:49:53 and 12:54:25 hours on 11.11.2020. As per PW19/ G. Jithender furnished CAF, CDR of deceased mobile No. 9391213246 and along with 65-B certificate. On verification of CAF of mobile No. 9391213246 it is registered on the name of Deceased Choudaboina Lakshmi and on verifying the CDR of the deceased on the day of incident i.e., on 11.11.2020 the mobile of deceased locations are found in Bhongir near by Vivera Hotel and at scene of offence between 16:22 hours and 17:10 hours.
72.PW20 furnished the CAF CDR of Vivera hotel cashier/PW8 Mobile
No. 8978883585 and along with 65-B Certificate. On verification of CAF mobile No. 8978883585 it is registered on the name of M. Bhasker
Reddy/LW14 (Died) on that I recorded the statement of Lw14 in which he stated that in the year 2012 he obtained the SIM card of the Airtel Mobile
Service on his name and which was used in cash counter of Vivera Hotel by PW8. Ex.P38 is the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of LW14/M. Bhasker
Reddy. On verifying the CDR it is found that there are outgoing calls from
PW8 to PW9 at 12:47:32, 12:49:53 and 12:54:25 hours on 11.11.2020.
73.After collection FSL report and other relevant document and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet.
32
SC No.79 of 2022
74.In the cross-examination he stated that, he rushed to the scene of offence on 13.11.2020 in the morning hours. He issued Pass Port to the
Police constables and one SI, which was deputed by him and the same was in the file. He received acknowledgment copy but he has not file in the case record. On 15.11.2020 the deputed constables and one SI and they apprehended the accused and produced before me at 8.00 am on 15.11.2020. There is no mandatory to issued notice to the local police station while apprehending the accused in their jurisdiction, as it was under control of same DCP. They addressed a letter to MRO, Bhongir to depute two panch witness to record confession-cum-seizure of the accused on 15.11.2020 in the morning hours at about 8 to 8.15 am through one of their Police Constable. He cannot say the name and number of that Police Constable. They filed a requisition with in the prescribed period through Nodal Officer of JIO and Airtle Offices. He collected CCTV footage from Vivera Hotel and he endorsed his signature on it. But he has not obtained the signature of the owner of the hotel and who holding CCTV footage. He further stated that, he sent the seized material to FSL on 21.11.2020 through ACP Bhongir. He obtained the permission from Prl. JFCM, Bhongir to send the accused for DNA Test by giving notice to accused. He admitted that, he has not seized the ID cards of the accused and the deceased from the Domarman Security
Office. On 17.02.2021 he sent the accused to FSL as per the proceedings of Learned Prl. JFCM, Bhongir for DNA Test.
75.The counsel for prosecution relied upon Shankar Vs. State of
Maharastra 2023 Live law (SC) 212 “In a case of rested on circumstantial evidence and ‘last seen’ theory is relied on as a link in the chain of circumstance, the evidence relating the time at which the deceased was lastly seen with the Accused has to be proved conclusively as when it is proximate with the time of finding the dead body the burden to establish the innocence would be that of the Accused” 33
SC No.79 of 2022
76. It was held that, but in a case based on circumstantial evidence neither the accused nor the manner of occurrence is known to the persons connected with the victim. The first information report is lodged only disclosing the offence, leaving to the investigating agency to find out the offender.
77. It is said that men lie but circumstances do not. Under the circumstances prevailing in the society today, it is not true in many cases.
Sometimes the circumstances which are sought to be proved against the accused for purpose of establishing the charge are planted by the elements hostile to the accused who find out witnesses to fill up the gaps in the chain of circumstances. In countries having sophisticated modes of investigation, every trace left behind by the culprit can be followed and pursued immediately. Unfortunately it is not available in many parts of this country. That is why courts have insisted 1 1993 SCC (Cri) 860
(i) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established; (ii) all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilty of the accused and should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one sought to be proved; (iii) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature; and (iv) the chain of evidence should not have any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused.
78.“ …It has been impressed that suspicion and conjecture should not take the place of legal proof. It is true that the chain of events proved by the prosecution must show that within all human probability the offence has been committed by the accused, but the court is expected to consider the total cumulative effect of all the proved facts along with the motive suggested by the prosecution which induced the accused to 34
SC No.79 of 2022
follow a particular path. The existence of a motive is often an enlightening factor in a process of presumptive reasoning in cases depending on circumstantial evidence.”
79. In Brijlal Prasad Sinha Vs. State of Bihar this Court held thus: “In a case of circumstantial evidence the prosecution is bound to establish the circumstances from which the conclusion is drawn must be fully proved; the circumstances should be conclusive in nature; all the circumstances so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt and inconsistent with the innocence; and lastly the circumstances should to a great certainty exclude the possibility of guilt of any person other than the accused. The law relating to circumstantial evidence no longer remains res integra and it has been 2 (1998) SCC (Cri) 1382 held by catena of decisions of this
Court that the circumstances proved should lead to no other inference except that of the guilt of the accused so that, the accused can be convicted of the offences charged.
It may be stated as a rule of caution that before the court records conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence, it must satisfy itself that the circumstances from which inference of guilt could be drawn have been established by unimpeachable evidence and the circumstances unerringly point to the guilt of the accused and further, all the circumstances taken together are incapable of any explanation on any reasonable hypothesis save the guilt of the accused.”
80.In the decision in Prakash Vs. State of Rajasthan it was held that, “A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established” .
35
SC No.79 of 2022
81. “the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between 'may be proved' and 'must be or should be proved' as was held by this
Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade Vs. State of Maharastra [(1973) 2 SCC 793] where it was held that, “Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between 'may be' 3 (2013) 4 SCC 668 4 (1984) 4 SCC 116 and 'must be' is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.” “ 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, (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency, (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) 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.”
82.These five golden principles, if we may say so, constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence.”
83. “After noting the above five golden principles, it was held in Prakash’s case (supra), that they would constitute the Panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence and conviction could be sustained on the basis of last seen, motive and recovery of incriminating articles in pursuance of the information given by the accused if those five golden principles of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence are satisfied.
36
SC No.79 of 2022
84. Virtually, the law laid down relating circumstantial evidence in those decisions are unfailingly followed by this Court while dealing with the cases where conviction is rested on circumstantial evidence.
85.In the present case the deceased and the Accused came out of hte house on 11.11.2020 from the house of the deceased and it was seen by the Pw4 who is son of the deceased. Later, they went to Yadagirigutta hired an auto of PW8, they took one room and later they went to Vivera hotel which was situated by-pass road and they parcelled one muttorn biryani and they had mutton biryani near Vivera hotel. PW9 is the cashier of that hotel. As per the Investigating Officer, he stated that same was recorded in the Vivera Hotel and he collected the CC TV footage and CC
TV footage they found accused and deceased together at Vivera hotel and Accused carrying a bag and visited hotel cash counter at 12.43 p.m on 11.11.2020 and hte was was noticed that the deceased and Accused and left the hotel at 1.04 p.m on 11.11.2020 and the same was copied and the same was submitted to the court. Later, they went to the bushes they had mutton biryani. Subsequently, on the dark night the Accused coming from the bushes of the high way and the same was wintesed by
PW5 and LW7/Jangaiah and on suspicion manner the Accused saw PW5 and LW7. Later, the PW5 and LW7 entered into the bushes at 500 meters, then they found one lady with bleeding injuries on her face and neck and near to her there is one bag was found and the same intimated to the CI of Police, Bhongir town and later the CI of Police came there 37
SC No.79 of 2022
and observed the dead body and he instructed them to stay there and he called ambualnce, they shifted the dead body of the deceased to Area
Hospital on search of the bag they found Aadhar card of the deceased. In the said Aadhar card they found the address of deceased and she belongs to Dharmagada Thanda. PW5 knows about the Sarpanch of the
Dharmagada Thanda. Later he intimated the same to the CI of Police,
Bhongir. Then he has given the phone number of Dharmagada sarpanch.
Later, he revealed about the incident, then Sarpanch, Dharmagada
Thanda knows the father of the deceased and he made a phone call to faher of the deceased, then the father of the deceased/PW3 infromed to
PW1, 2 and 4. On the next day morning they came to the Bhongir town and lodged complaint. Later the CI of Police went to the scene of offence and registered the case and called the photographer inthe night hours, the photographer took photos of the dead body at the scene of offence, he submitted the photographs to the CI of Police, then the PW23 onthe next day morning the children of the deceased came and PW1 lodged the complaint due to the night hours,he could not conducted the scene of offence panchanama and collected the material objects from the scene of offence ie., blood stained earth, control earth, Kingfisher beer bottles,
Supermax Blade, Pink Colour bag, white Towel with read board, two disposal glass with blood stained, Hywards beer bottle, greay colour shirt,
Kinelye water bottle, two empty budwiser beer bottles, Cloth carrying bag, one Jio Phone of deceased with SIM card, One Aadhar Card of 38
SC No.79 of 2022
Accused, One Aadhdar Card of Deceased and found the clothes of accused in Pink colour bag in which one grey colour shirt with title
Dobarman Security People for protection, one black pant, Ramraj Cotton one Red colour mask and deceased Aadhar Card and the same were seized under cover of pancahanama in presence of PW5 and LW7/M.
Jangaiah.
86.Later they went to the Area Hospital, Bhongir before the same panch witness, seized the cloths of deceased i.e., Pink Colour top Panjabi dress and they found some hairs in the Right hand of the deceased between the fingers.
87.Later, the Second Investigating Officer deputed SI of Police and two constables to trace out the accused and they apprehended the
Accused along with bag in front of Gayathri hotel, and brought him to the police station, when he was in the mood of confession he secured two panch witness and condcuted confession-cum-seizure pancahanama of the accused and the Accused confesed guilt that he killed the deceased
Lakshmi. The Investigating officer also examined the house owner of the
Accused and deceased ie., PW10 who is the house owner of the deceased he stated that the deceased brought the accused before him who let out the shop to the Accused under rent of Rs.3,500/- per month. It establishes that, the Accused and deceased has acquaintance.
39
SC No.79 of 2022
88.PW11 who is the owner of the deceased Laxmi. Since one year prior to to the death the deceased Laxmi was residing along with her three children. He came to know that, the death of Laxmi through newspapers. PW12 who is the Area officer in Doberman Security
Solutions Private Limited. The police found grey colour shirt and it consists of Doberman security peoples protection and the Investigating
Officer examined PW12 and he stated since the last six years deceased
Laxmi used to work in their office and as per the muster roll of their office and about attendance of the deceased and accused on 11.11.2020 and on 12.12.2020 the Accsed and deceased are not present, which clearly shows that the Accused and deceased worked under Doberman Security
Solutions Private Limited. Mo10 is the grey colour shirt which was consisting of Doberman security peoples protection, which establishes that both are worked together at one place.
89.Later, CI of police, Bhongir requested the finger print unit to extract and they identified Haywards beer bottles which was found at the scene of offence and found two finger prints one finger print is unfit for comparision and A print sent to the data base centere. On 15.11.2020 they received chance finger prints of the accused and this chance print identical with the earlier which was took from the Haywards beer bottle then, he issued Ex.P9 is the report, which establishes that, the Accused was very much present at the time of commission of offence and finger prints of the Accuses are tallying with on beer bottle. Later, conducted 40
SC No.79 of 2022
inquest panchanama over the dead body of the deceased and after completion of PME the dead body of deceased was handed over to their relatives. From these lines it clearly shows that the Accused used sharp supermax blade in the commission of offence and he also beat the deceased with stone on her face which results laceration of 2X 3 inches at the root of the nose on right side near medial canthus and B/I Nasal bones fracture. The accused not only used blade and also used stone to beat her. The accused used sharp edged weapon which causes death of deceased and accordingly PW17 issued Ex.P11 FSL report and Ex.P12 is the PME report, which clearly establishes that, the Accused killed the deceased with the super max blade and stone. Therefore, medical evidence was corroborating ot the case of prosecution. Subsequently, the material objects were sent to FSL and as per FSL report the human blood was detected on the item No.1, 3, 5 to 13 and blood stain on item No.5 to 13 is of ‘B’ blood group of deceased. Later the Investigating Officer send with the help of DCP Yadadari-Bhongir requesting the Nodal officer,
Reliance, JIO and PW21 received material from Serology department ie., item No.5 to 13. DNA extracted from item No.5 to 13 are subjected to
Autosomal STR analysis by using global filer kit. The DNA obtained from item No.5, 6 and 7 are compared with the DNA profile obtained from item No.13. The allelic pattern of item No.5, 6 ot item No.5, 6 and 7 matches with the allelic pattern of item No.13 and PW21 issued Ex.P31
DNA profile, which clearly establishes that, the material evidence was 41
SC No.79 of 2022
corroborated with the evidnece of PW1 to 4 and PW13, 14 and 15. Later the Investigating Officer send the requisition to Nodal officer, Reliance
JIO to trace out CAF and CDR along 65-B certificate of mobile of Accused and deceased and accordingly they submitted the relevant documents and subsequently after the confession panchanama the Investigating
Officer addressed a letter to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalgonda for nominating an Officer to conduct TI parade, accordingly the PW22 conducted TI parade and PW8 and 9 who is the Auto driver and cashier of Vivera hotel, in their 161 Cr.P.C statement they identified the Accused and the Accused and deceased travelled in their auto from this evidence
Auto driver and PW9 who is the cashier of Vivera hotel both are examined and they stated in favour of the prosecution but in the chief examination they did not remember whether the Accused travelled in their auto and the counsel for the Accused vehemently argued that, the police shown the photograph and PW8 identified the Accused. But in the TI parade conducted by PW22, PW8 and PW9 are examined and obtained the signatures of PW8 and 9. This court recalled the PW8 and 9 during the chief examination they identified the Ex.P32 and PE33, which establishes that they are very much present at the time of conducting the TI parade as per the TI parade proceedings Ex.P35 they identiifed the Accused.
90.Later, the Investigating Officer sent requisition to Nodal Officer trhough DCP, Yadadri-Bhongir , Reliance Jio and this exhibits PW19 and
LW29/B.V. Narayanan, Nodal Officer,Airtel Limited.
42
SC No.79 of 2022
91.LW29 furnished the CAF and CDR of Accused mobile Number and
Auto driver and deceased mobile numbers along with 65 (B) certificate.
accordingly issued reports and on the date of incident ie., 11.11.2020 the mobile of the Accused No.7093977924 is found in Bhongir near by Vivera
Hotel and scene of offence between 13:32 hours and 20:33 hours. As per the CDR and CAF which was furnished by PW19, on verifying the CDR of the accused it is found that 1176 calls conversations between the
Accused and deceased mobile No.9391213246 are noticed since last 5 months. The Accused mobile locations are Geo Tagged in google map and the same was submitted to the court along with charge sheet.
92.On verification of CAF of mobile number 9908558107 of Auto driver, it is registered onhte name of Mohammad Javeed. On verifying of
CDR of LW13 by LW33 there are incoming calls from LW12 mobile No.
8978883585 at 12:47:32, 12:49:53 and 12:54:25 hours on 11.11.2020.
It reveals that, there is conversation between the Accused and auto driver. As per the version of PW19 the mobile was registered on the name of deceased, but on verifying deceased mobile number on 11.11.2020 the mobile of deceased locations are found in Bhongir near by Vivera hotel and scene of offence between 16:22 hours and 17.10 hours, which establishes that the Accused and deceased are very much present near the Vivera Hotel, there they had dinner which was covered with trees and bushes. Subsequently, Accused attacked on her and killed by using super max blade and also beat with the stone. All the articles 43
SC No.79 of 2022
and are found near the deceased body which was used in the commission of offence. In seizure panchanama all the material objects seized.
93.PW20 furnished the CAF, CDR of vivera hotel casher LW12 mobile
No. 8978883585 and along with 65 -B certificate. On verfication of mobile Number of the LW12 it was registered onthe name of M.Bhaskar
Reddy (LW14), on that recorded the statments of LW14, in which he stated that, in the year 2012 he obtained SIM card of Airtel mobile service limited on his name and it is being used at cash counter in Vivera hotel.
94.Therefore, the CAF and CDR which was isused by PW19 and PW20 about the accused and deceased, PW8 and PW9 mobiles phones and reports corroborating with each other and as per the CCTV footage the
Accused and deceased went to the Vivera hotel and parcelled mutton biryani and left the Vivera hotel and the same was recorded inthe CCTV footage of the Vivera Hotel. It was clinchingly establishes that the
Accused came along with the deceased.
95.In State of U.P. v. Kishanpal (2008) 16 SCC 73) “ this Court examined the importance of motive in cases of circumstantial evidence and observed:
(SCC pp. 87-88, paras 38-39) ‘38. … the motive is a thing which is primarily known to the accused themselves and it is not possible for the prosecution to explain what actually promoted or excited them to commit the particular crime.
44
SC No.79 of 2022
96.“ The motive may be considered as a circumstance which is relevant for assessing the evidence but if the evidence is clear and unambiguous and the circumstances prove the guilt of the accused, the same is not weakened even if the motive is not a very strong one. It is also settled law that the motive loses all its importance in a case where direct evidence of eyewitnesses is available, because even if there may be a very strong motive for the accused persons to commit a particular crime, they cannot be convicted if the evidence of eyewitnesses is not convincing. In the same way, even if there may not be an apparent motive but if the evidence of the eyewitnesses is clear and reliable, the absence or inadequacy of motive cannot stand in the way of conviction.”
97.In the present case the motive of the Accused is to kill the deceased and he picked up deceased at her house from the Banjara hills later they went to Yadagirigutta and they took one room and later, they took auto and went to the Vivera hotel and there they taken mutton biryani and also purchased Haywards kingfiher beer bottle and the same was recorded the CCTV footage of Vivera Hotel. Later they went to near the bushes of the Vivera hotel they had mutton biryani and consumed beer and later Accused made the commission of offence and as per the prosecution story the deceased maintaining distance fromthe Accused on that aspect the Accused motive is to kill the deceased. Therefore, the motive plays an important link to completion of general of the circumstances.
45
SC No.79 of 2022
98.The prosecution relied upon Wazir Khan Vs. Uttarakhand 2023
Live law (SC) 601: 2023 INSC 674 “A Judge does not preside over a criminal trial merely to see that no inncoent man is punished. The court proceeded to observe that a judge also presides to see that a guilty man does not escape. Both are public duties. The law does not enjoin the duty on the prosecution to lead evidence of such character, which is almost impossible to be led, or at any rate, extemely difficult to led. The duty on the prosecution is to lead such evidence, which it is capable of leading, having regard to the facts and cirucumstances of the case.”
99.In the present case there is no direct evidence and the prosecution relied upon circustantial evidence and prosecution proved the guilt of the
Accused and at the same time the counsel for Accused vehemently argued that, the Accused was not involved in the said crime the evidence of PW2 and 4 was inconsistent and PW15 who acted as panch witness stated that the panchanama was conducted on 15.11.2020 which falls on
Sunday and PW15 revealed even after it falls Sunday they have to attend the office and later on perusal of PW8 and 9 though who not supported the prosecution case, but on recall they admitted signatures on TI parade proceedings, but they are very much present at TI parade and their statements were recorded by PW22 and obtained their signatures on
Ex.P32 and P33.
100. It clinchingly establishes that PW8 and 9 identifed the Accused as per the proceedings of TI parde by PW22, which clinchingly establishes that the Accused was involved in the present case.
101.“The fule of benefit of reasonable doubt does not imply a frail willow bending to every whiff of hesitancy. Judges are made of sterner stuff and must take a practical view of legitimate inferences flowing from evidence , circumstantial or direct. At the same time, it may be affirmed, as pointed out by this court in Kali Ram Vs. State of 46
SC No.79 of 2022
Himachal Pradesh AIR 1973 SCC 2773, that if a reasonable doubt arises regarding the guilt of the Accused, the benefit of that cannot be withheld from him”
102. The prosecution also relied upon Harendra Rai Vs. The state of
Bihar and others “Failure of the major stakeholders in the criminal delivery system - Three main stake holders in a criminal trial, namely the
Investigating Officer,the Public Prosecutor, and the Judiciary, have all utterly failed to keep up their respective duties and responsibilities cast upon them. The Trial Court and the High Court miserably failed to notice thesensitivityandintricaciesofthecase.Both the Courts completely shut their eyes to the manner of the investigation, the Prosecutor’s role, and the highhandedness of the accused as also the conduct of the Presiding Officer of the Trial Court, despite observations and findings having recorded not only by the Administrative Judge but also by the Division Bench deciding Habeas corpus petition.
103. From the above submssions by the both counsels and oral and documentary evidence it reveals that, the medical evidence was corrborating with the prosecution story. As per FSL report the Accused clothes are stained with blood of deceased at the commission of offence the blood was floated from the deceased throat. As per Ex.P35 Geo tag the Accused and deceased mobile was located at the scene of offence.
And as per CCTV footage the Accused and deceased travelled together and visited the Vivera hotel later went out and they had dinner and later the Accused killed the deceased Lakshmi. There is no direct evidence.
Therefore this court relied upon, the circumstantial evidence. Hence, the prosecution proved the guilt of the Accused. The Accused found guilty beyond all reasonsable doubt.
47
SC No.79 of 2022
104. Therefore, the prosecution proved and established the guilt of the accused Under Section 302 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt and he is entitled for conviction as per provision of law.
HEARING ON QUANTUM OF SENTENCE
105. Accused is questioned with regard to the quantum of sentence to be imposed upon him.
106. The Accused submitted that he will prefer appeal and Accused revealed that his wife is pregnant, he has old aged parents, his elder brother is hospitalized with heart problem.
107. Heard the accused with regard to quantum of sentence. After taking into consideration all the circumstances and nature of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the said circumstances are mitigating in nature and the Court can take lenient view. This is not fit case to invoke the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act and also not fit case to take lenient view. As such, it is just and proper to award punishment to accused in the interest of justice and to meet ends of justice.
108. In the result, the Accused is found guilty for the offence punishable U/s. 302 of IPC and he is convicted U/s.235(2) Cr.P.C and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of LIFE and shall pay Rs.1,000/- for the offence Under Section 302 of IPC and in default to pay fine he shall suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of 6 months.
109. MOS 1 to 15, Mo.17 to 21, Mo.23 to 25 shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time. MO16 and 22 shall be return to its original owners after proper identification and acknowledgment after expiry of appeal time.
48
SC No.79 of 2022
110.Since the children of deceased ie., two daughters and one son are not having parents. Therefore, they are victims they have no financial capacity to lead their life. Under such circumstances they are entitled for compensation amount of Rs.5 lakhs each, U/sec. 357-A of
Cr.P.C.
Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I, typed by her, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open court on this the 28 th day of March, 2024.
I ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
BHONGIR.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION
PW-1 Ch. KeerthanaComplainant and elder daughter of the deceased PW-2 Ch. KranthiCircumstantial witness and younger daughter of the deceased PW-3 P. AilaiahCircumstantial witness and father of the deceased. PW-4Ch. SureshCircumstantial witness and son of the deceased PW-5K. Srinivasulu1stsaw the dead body of deceased PW-6P. PraveenPhotographed the scene PW-7M. BhaskarAssisted the I.O in arresting the Accused PW-8S.HariHotel cashier saw the Accused with deceased PW-9Mohd. JaveedDeceased and Accused travelled auto PW-10S. Shiva KumarHouse owner of accused PW-11K. SudhakarHouse owner of deceased PW-12A. Vinod KumarSecurity officer in Doberman security in which the deceased and accused working PW-13D.SrinivasSecurity officer in Doberman 49
SC No.79 of 2022
security in which the deceased and accused working PW-14M. SailuPanch for inquest PW-15M.A FaheemPanch for confession and seizure panchanama of Accused. PW-16K. KishoreVisited the scene and collected finger prints on beer bottle PW-17ChandrakalaMedical officer, held PME PW-18Swarana RaniIssued Serology report PW-19G.JithenderProvided CAF and CDR along with 65-B certificate of deceased mobile. PW-20SantoshProvided CAF and CDR along with 65-B certificate of LW-12 PW-21G.PanuIssued DNA report PW-22PramilajainConducted TIP of accused PW-23V.JanaiahIssued FIR and 1st I.O PW-24A.SudhakarI.O and filed charge sheet
ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE
-Nil -
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION
Ex.P1: is the Complaint Ex.P2: is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW8 Ex.P3: is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW9 Ex.P4: is the Muster roll of Doberman security solutions Pvt. Ltd., Ex.P5: is the scene of offence cum seizure panchanama, Ex.P6: is the rough sketch Ex.P7: is the inquest panchanama Ex.P8: is the confession cum recovery panchanama Ex.P9: is the finger print report Ex.P10:is the comparison chart Ex.P11:is the FSL report Ex.P12:is the PME report. Ex.P13 : is the Serology report Ex.P14: is the Letter addressed to DCP Bhongir. Ex.P15: is the 65-B certificate Ex.P16: is the Customer application form Ex.P17: is the Call data of deceased mobile Ex.P18: is the letter addressed to DCP Ex.P19: is the certificate 65-B 50
SC No.79 of 2022
Ex.P20: is the Customer application form of Accused Ex.P21: is the call data Mobile No.7093977924 Ex.P22: is the Call details of Accused mobile number Ex.P23: is the letter addressed to DCP Ex.P24: is the certificate 65-B Ex.P25: is the Customer application form of Md. Javeed Ex.P26: is the Call details of Md. Javeed Mobile number Ex.P27: is the letter addressed to DCP Ex.P28: is the certificate 65-B Ex.P29: is the Customer application form of LW14 Ex.P30: is the Call details of Mobile No. 8978883585 Ex.P31: is the FSL report. Ex.P32: is the statement of PW8 before LW31 Ex.P33: is the statement of PW9 before LW31 Ex.P34: is the requisition by CI of police Bhongir town to conduct Test Identification parade. Ex.P35: is the Test identification parade proceedings Ex.P36: is the FIR. Ex.P37: is the Geo tag Ex.P38: is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of LW14.
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE
--NIL—
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED
MO-1: is the 9 photos. MO-2: is the Blood stained earth MO-3: is the blood stained stone MO-4: is the supermax blade MO-5: is the pink colour ladies hand bag MO-6: is the white colour Kanduva. MO-7: is the two disposal glasses MO-8 : is the king fisher beer bottle MO-9: is the Haywards beer bottle MO-10: is the Grey colour shirt MO-11: is the Kinley water bottle MO-12: is the 500 ml budwiser empty beer bottle MO-13: is the cloth carry bag MO-14: is the Ramraj cotton mask MO-15: is the pink colour mask MO-16: is the Jio phone tied with sim card MO-17: is the pink colour top MO-18: is the floral designed pyjama MO-19: is the pink colour bra 51
SC No.79 of 2022
MO-20: is the blood stained jeans pant MO-21: is the T-shirt MO-22: is the mobile phone of the accused MO-23: is the one Aadhar card of Accused. MO-24: is the Aadhar card of deceased. MO-25: is the CD.
I ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
BHONGIR.
//True copy//
52
SC No.79 of 2022
WARRANT OF COMMITMENT ON A SENTENCE OF IMPROSONMENT
FINE OR BOTH
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
AT BHONGIR.
SC.NO.79 OF 2022
(Cr.No.279/2020 of P.S. Bhongir town)
To The Superintendent, Central- Prison, Cherlapally.
This on the 28 th Day of March, 2024 the Accused by name: Are Kumar @ Chinnu, S/o: Venkanna, Age: 27 years, Occ: Security Guard, present R/o: Nandi Nagar, Road No.14, Banjarahills, Hyderabad, N/o: H. No. 1-80, Darmagadda thanda, Peddamaduru colony, Devaruppala Mandal, Jangam District.
RESULT: In the result, the Accused is found guilty for the offence punishable U/s. 302 of IPC and he is convicted U/s.235(2) Cr.P.C and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of LIFE and shall pay Rs.1,000/- for the offence Under Section 302 of IPC and in default to pay fine he shall suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of 6 months.
MOS 1 to 15, Mo.17 to 21, Mo.23 to 25 shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time. MO16 and 22 shall be return to its original owners after proper identification and acknowledgment after expiry of appeal time.
Since the children of deceased ie., two daughters and one son are not having parents. Therefore, they are victims they have no financial capacity to lead their life. Under such circumstances they are entitled for compensation amount of Rs.5 lakhs each, U/sec. 357-A of Cr.P.C.
The accused has informed that he is entitled to prefer an appeal.
The Superintendent, Central-Prison, Cherlapally is directed to release after the conviction period if he is not required any other case.
It is to authorize and require you (the Superintendent Central- Prison, Cherlapally) to receive the aforesaid accused into your custody into the prison with this Warrant and thereby carry aforesaid sentence into execution to law.
53
SC No.79 of 2022
1.The accused is classed as casual. 2.The diet to which the accused was accustomed according to his statement. 3.The distance from the accused residence the nearest Jail is ------- k.m.
:DESCRIPTIVE ROLL:
Name: Are Kumar @ Chinnu, S/o: Venkanna, Age: 27 years, Occ: Security Guard, present R/o: Nandi Nagar, Road No.14, Banjarahills, Hyderabad, N/o: H. No. 1-80, Darmagadda thanda, Peddamaduru colony, Devaruppala Mandal, Jangam District.
:DESCRIPTIVE MARKS:
1. A Mole on the left hand shoulder
2. A mole on the right hand arm.
Under my hand and seal of the court on this the 28th Day of March, 2024.
I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BHONGIR.