Smt. K. Radha Ratnam

1 Fair

IN THE COURT OF V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS

JUDGE (FTC),GUNTUR.

PRESENT: Smt. K. Radha Ratnam,

II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, GUNTUR.

FAC V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC), GUNTUR.

Tuesday, the 17th day of April, 2018.

S.C. No.451/2014.

Between:

State:Inspector of Police,

Amaravathi Circle. ..Complainant.

Vs.

1. Kadiyala Punyavardhanarao son of Venkatanarasimharao, 40 years, Telaga, Vaddamanu village, Thulluru Mandal.

2. Pogartha Nagamani wife of Yellaiah, 50 years, Mondibanda by caste, Vadamanu village, now at Indira Colony,

Eluru. ..Accused.

This case coming on 3-4-2018 before me for final hearing, in the presence of Additional Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of

Sri K. Rama Mohan Rao, Advocate for the accused No.1, and of Sri B.

Sai Babu, Advocate for the accused No.2 and upon perusing the material evidence on record and the matter having stood over for consideration to this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

A1 and A2 are charged with the offence punishable under Secs.

302 and 109 of IPC in Cr.No. 67/2013 of Thullur P.S.

2. The story of the prosecution is that the deceased and A2 are husband and wife. That A2 left the deceased and she is living separately. The deceased used to live with his mother who owned some property. Few months prior to the death of the deceased, A2 contacted the mother of the deceased and questioned about her share for which her mother-in-law declined to give any share. Then on 2 Fair 27-4-2013 the mother of the deceased executed a Will and bequeathed an extent of Ac.3-20 cents to the deceased. In apprehension that her husband will not give said property to her and her children, she instigated A1 her paramour to kill her husband the deceased. A2 promised A1 that after killing her husband, she will lead life with the property of her husband. Accordingly, with a bad intention that he can enjoy the property of A2, A1 decided to done away the life of the deceased and on 4-7-2013 the deceased met his nephew by name

Ravi, who is examined as P.W.5, at his house at about 9-30 p.m., who invited for dinner and informed him that A1 invited him for dinner, as such he was going to center to meet A1 around 11-00 p.m. on the same day, the deceased made a phone call to his another nephew

Venkateswara Rao, who is examined as P.W.4, but in his absence his wife Sammakka, who is examined as P.W.8 talked to him that A1, who invited the deceased for dinner took the deceased to brandy shop offered excess drink and took him to his cattle shed, made him to fallen down and inflicted injuries with a stone and pierced with iron semi circle hook of the wooden door (voggi) with sharp edged object on both sides of inguinal region caused injuries to testicles, besides that round up a rope around the neck and due to which the deceased died and after confirming himself about the death of the deceased he informed the same to A2 the wife of the deceased on phone about his death. Thereafter, on the same day night in the mid night around 3-00 p.m., he shifted the dead body from the cattle shed to a cement road which is situated on back to his house and left. In the morning around 5-00 a.m., the dead body of the deceased was found seen on the cement road in front of the vacant site of one Kojja Bala Koti. This was informed to V.R.O., who was examined as P.W.1, who in turn 3 Fair rushed to the place and found the dead body of the deceased with injuries and then he went to Thulluru P.S. and gave a report (Ex.P1) to

P.W.12, the then S.I. of Police, Thulluru P.S., who registered the same as FIR under Ex.P16 and on information about the registration of the murder, P.W.13 the then Circle Inspector of Police took up investigation and investigated into the case. During the course of investigation, he visited the scene of offence, conducted scene observation, recorded the statements of the witnesses and got conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased, got photographed the dead body of the deceased, then sent the dead body to the Government Hospital for post-mortem examination.

Further, on 21-7-2013, he effected the arrest of A1, after recording his confessional statement and basing on the said confession and the other material evidence available on record, he filed charge sheet against A1 and A2 the wife of the deceased.

3.Case was taken on file for the offences punishable under Secs.

302 and 109 of IPC by the Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri against the accused. On appearance of the accused, copies of the case record relied upon by the prosecution were furnished to the accused as contemplated under Sec. 207 Cr.P.C. As the learned Magistrate satisfied that there is a prima facie material available against the accused for the offence punishable under Secs. 302 and 109 of IPC to try them, which are exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, committed the case vide PRC No.58/2013, under Sec. 209(a) of

Cr.P.C. In turn, the Court of Sessions, Sessions Division, Guntur taken the case under Sec. 193 of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under

Sec. 302 of IPC against the accused by allotting Sessions Case

No.451/2014, made over the same to I Addl. District and Sessions 4 Fair

Court, Guntur for disposal according to Law and the case of transferred to V Addl. District and Sessions Court (FTC), Guntur as per the proceedings of the Hon'ble District Judge, Guntur in Dis.No. 937,

dt. 22-9-2015 and the same was received by the V Addl. District Court

(FTC), Guntur on 13-10-2015.

4. On receipt of summons, accused appeared before this court on 11-8-2016 and Sri K. Rama Mohan Rao and Sri B. Sai Baba, advocates filed memos of appearance on behalf of A1 and A2 respectively. After hearing, charges under Sec. 302 against A1 and under Sec.302 r/w 109 of IPC against A2 have been framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, trial has commenced.

5.In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined P.Ws. 1 to 13 and got marked Exs.P1 to P18, Ex.D1 and

M.Os. 1 to 3 on its behalf.

6.The examination of the accused 1 and 2 under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C.

was conducted confronting incriminating evidence against the accused in the prosecution witnesses for which they denied the same, their plea is one of the total denial and reported no defence evidence.

7. Heard both counsel on record.

8.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused 1 and 2 of the offence under Sec.302 of IPC as against A1 and of the offence under Sec. 302 r/w 109of IPC against A2 beyond reasonable doubt?

Point:

5 Fair

9.In nut shell the case of the prosecution is that A1 committed murder of the deceased on the instigation of A2 the wife of the deceased. So that both are liable for the offence punishable under

Sec. 302 of IPC.

10.In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has to prove that the accused committed murder of the deceased by adducing direct evidence or by adducing circumstantial evidence without leaving any scope of suspicion.

11.In the present case, admittedly, there is no direct evidence to prove that A1 killed the deceased. The prosecution mainly relied on the circumstantial evidence of the witness of one Mekala Venkaiah (L.W.8) and one Bojja Sammakka who is examined as P.W.8.

According to prosecution, before the incident on 4-7-2013 around 9-30 p.m., the deceased contacted his nephew Bojja Ravi, who is examined as P.W.5, as P.W.5 invited him for dinner and refused to take meal there at the house of P.W.5 and informed him that A1 invited him for diner, as such he is going to center to meet A1. Hence, the evidence of P.W.5 is very important to prove that the deceased met A1 on that night, but P.W.5 did not support the said case of the prosecution.

According to him, he does not know anything about the case and about how the death of the deceased was caused. Admittedly, the deceased is none other than the maternal uncle to this witness. The learned

Addl. Public Prosecutor subjected this witness for cross-examination by putting questions under Sec.154 of Indian Evidence Act, but nothing could be elicited from this witness to speak falsehood against the prosecution case.

12. Now, coming to another witness P.W.8, who according prospection received a phone call from the deceased prior to his death.

6 Fair

This witness also did not support the case of the prosecution. She deposed that she does not know anything about the case and about the cause of death of the deceased. The learned Addl. Public

Prosecutor subjected this witness for cross-examination, but nothing could be elicited from her so as to discard her evidence.

13. So, the important two witnesses who according to prosecution can link up the accused with the incident at least prior to his death did not support the case of the prosecution and as such their evidence is not useful to the prosecution case in any manner.

14. Nextly, in order to link up the accused with the alleged offence of committing murder of the deceased, this court felt that the prosecution must establish the circumstances of the allegations made by it that the deceased and his wife A2 are living separately, due to disputes between them, and further that there is illicit intimacy between A1 and A2 to make believe the court that A1 and A2 conspired together and planned to kill the deceased. The prosecution must also to establish that in order to get the property of the mother- in-law of A2, both the accused planned to kill and committed the same.

15.If the prosecution could able to establish the above all circumstances by adducing cogent and convincing evidence, then alone this court would be under a position to view the circumstances put forth by the prosecution are sufficient to link up the accused with the alleged offence of murder.

16. In order to prove that there are disputes between the deceased and his wife A2 and also the alleged illegal contact between A1 and A2, the prosecution examined P.W.2 the maternal uncle of the deceased,

P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.5 the nephews of the deceased and P.W.6 the relative of the deceased. But, none of them supported the said case of 7 Fair the prosecution and all of them turned hostile witnesses to the prosecution. They were subjected by the learned Addl. Public

Prosecutor for cross-examination, but nothing could be elicited from them so as to discard their evidence. Hence, absolutely, there is no oral evidence available on record to prove any of the allegations made by the prosecution against A1 and A2.

17. Nextly, the learned counsel for defence argued that the prosecution case is to be suspected on the ground that the alleged place of incident was shifted.

18. This court has gone through the entire record and noticed that as from the prosecution version the alleged incident that A1 beat the deceased took place at Kottam (cattle shed of A1) and thereafter, A1 shifted the dead body of the deceased from that place, on to the cement road which is situated on the back of his house where the public noticed the dead body and the relatives of the deceased shifted the dead body to the house of the deceased and kept there. That immediately after information about the dead body, the Village

Revenue Officer (P.W.1) proceeded to the place where the dead body was found and then he gave report to the police and by the time

P.W.13 visited the place where the dead body was initially found, the dead body was also shifted to the house of the deceased. So, after completion of scene observation at the place where the dead body was initially found, the Investigation Officer proceeded to the house of the deceased where the dead body of the deceased was kept. Hence, this court conclude that the said argument submitted by the learned defence counsel is of no avail to him.

19. The another important aspect is that the prosecution mainly relied on the alleged confessional statement made by A1 after his 8 Fair apprehension by the police to connect the accused with the offence.

According to Investigation Officer, P.W.13 on 21-7-2013 he apprehended the accused A1 and A1 confessed the offences that he at the instigation of A2 committed murder of the deceased by causing injuries to him with the help of big stone (M.O.1), rope (M.O.2), iron voggi (M.O.3). Admittedly the said alleged confession of A1 was made in the very presence of the Investigating Officer P.W.13. Hence, the said confessional statement is hit by Sec.25 of Indian Evidence Act and it is an admissible in evidence. However, the confession to the extent of leading discovery of an object is admissible in evidence. In this case, the Investigation Officer recovered the material objects 1 to 3 on the confession made by A1. That A1 himself produced those objects.

So, to that extent the said confession of A1 can be taken into consideration. But, now the duty cast upon the prosecution to establish t hat M.O.1 to M.O.3 are the objects with which the alleged offence of murder was committed by the Accused.

20. In this regard, the learned counsel for the accused submitted that according to prosecution, the deceased sustained severe bleeding injuries and the object used was allegedly pierced into the body of the deceased at two places but none of the material object seized was found with blood stains and as such the alleged material objects are planted one.

21. In the seizure panchanama of material objects, there is no any material to show that any of the object was with blood stains. The object which allegedly pierced into the body of the deceased at least must be with blood stains at its ends but no such blood stains are found place on that object which is marked as M.O.3 as pointed out by the learned counsel for the defence.

9 Fair

22. In this regard, this court felt that merely because no blood stains are found place on any of the material object, the prosecution case cannot be doubted when there is sufficient evidence either direct or circumstantial to establish the case of the prosecution. But, in the present case, no evidence is available on record to prove the guilt of the accused either by direct evidence or from the circumstantial evidence and as such this court opined that the submissions above made by the learned counsel for the defence can be taken into consideration to doubt the material objects produced by the prosecution.

23. The another aspect is that according to prosecution, there were phone calls between the deceased and A2 before and immediately after the murder of the deceased that A1 informed A2 about committing murder of the deceased. No such call data was placed before the court at least to connect the accused with the incident and its time.

24. From the discussions above all, this court conclude that absolutely, there is no evidence either direct or circumstantial to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence under Secs. 302 of IPC against A1, 302 r/w 109 of IPC against A2 beyond all reasonable doubt. As such this court conclude that both accused are entitled for acquittal. Thus, the point is answered accordingly.

25. In the result, A1 and A2 are found not guilty of the offences punishable under Secs. 302 of IPC and 302 r/w 109 of IPC respectively and they are acquitted under Sec. 235 (1) of Cr.P.C. for the said offences and their bail bonds shall stand cancelled. M.O.1 (big stone) M.O.2(rope) and M.O.3(iron voggi) vide C.P.R.

10 Fair

No.220/2013 shall ordered to be destroyed after appeal time.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 17th day of April,2018.

Sd. K. Radha Ratnam

II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,GUNTUR.

FAC V ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE

(FTC), GUNTUR.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined.

For Prosecution: For defence: None

PW1-Alla Gangadhara Rao.

PW2-Itla Hanumantha Rao.

PW3-Bojja Kondaiah.

PW4-Bojja Venkateswara Rao.

PW5-Bojja Ravi.

PW6-Bojja Srinu.

PW7-Thiyyagura Sambireddy.

PW8-Bojja Sammakka.

PW9-Vilasarapu Srikanth.

PW10-Dr. G. Chandra Sekhar.

P.W.11: Dr. V. Krishna Murthy.

PW12-Y. Atchaiah, SI of Police.

PW13-B. Mariya Das, Inspector of Police, Amaravathi Circle.

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1/--:Report given by VRO to Police, dt.5-7-2013.

Ex.P2/--:Observation report, dt. 5-7-2013.

Ex.P3/--:Inquest report, dt.5-7-2013.

Ex.P4/--:Mediatornama, dt.21-7-2013.

Ex.P5/--:161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.2, dt.5-7-2013.

Ex.P6/--:161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.4, dt.5-7-2013.

Ex.P7/--:161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.5, dt.5-7-2013.

Ex.P8/--:161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.6, dt.5-7-2013.

Ex.P9/--:161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.7, dt.5-7-2013.

Ex.P10/--:161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.8, dt.5-7-2013.

Ex.P11/--:Photos 8 in number.

11 Fair

Ex.P12/--:P.M.C. report, dt.9-7-3013

Ex.P13/--:R.F.S.L. Report, dt.18-10-2013.

Ex.P14/--:Final opinion, dt.16-11-2013.

Ex.P15/--:Expert opinion, dt.5-8-2013.

Ex.P16/--:FIR, dt. 5-7-2013 in Cr.No.67/2013.

Ex.P17/--:Rough sketch.

Ex.P18/--:Portion in confession statement, dt.21-7-2013.

Ex.D1/-- Portion in 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1, dt.5-7-2013.

For defence: Nil

Material Objects Marked

M.O.1: Big stone. M.O.2: Rope. M.O.3: Iron voggi.

Sd. K. Radha Ratnam

II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,GUNTUR.

FAC V ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE

(FTC), GUNTUR.

IN THE COURT OF V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE

12 Fair

(FTC),GUNTUR.

PRESENT: Smt. K. Radha Ratnam,

II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, GUNTUR.

FAC V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC), GUNTUR.

Tuesday, the 17th day of April, 2018.

S.C. No.451/2014.

1.Name of the CaseSessions Case No.451/14

2. Name of the committing Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri.

Magistrate

3. Name of the State:Inspector of Police, complainant Amaravathi Circle.

4. Name of the Accused 1. Kadiyala Punyavardhanarao son of Venkatanarasimharao, 40 years, Telaga, Vaddamanu village, Thulluru Mandal.

2. Pogartha Nagamani wife of Yellaiah, 50 years, Mondibanda by caste, Vadamanu village, now at Indira Colony, Eluru.

5.Date of 26-11-2014

i) Filling ii)Apprehension of 2-2-2015 Accused (Appearance

before sessions court)

iii)Commencement of 22-8-2017 trial iv)Closure of trial14-9-2017

v)Pronouncement of 17-4-2018 Judgment 6.Offence(s)Under Secs. 302 r/w 109 of IPC 7.Plea of Accused Not Guilty 8.Finding of the Court Not Guilty

9. Sentence or order In the result, A1 and A2 are found not guilty of the offences punishable under Secs. 302 of IPC and 302 r/w 109 of IPC respectively and they are acquitted under Sec. 235 (1) of Cr.P.C. for the said offences and their bail bonds shall stand cancelled. M.O.1 (big stone) M.O.2(rope) and M.O.3(iron voggi) vide C.P.R. No.220/2013 shall ordered to be destroyed after appeal time.

10.Explanation for Delay :- Originally this case was received from Addl. Junior

Civil Judge, Mangalagiri, vide PRC No.58/2013 against the accused by the

Hon'ble Court of Sessions and the Sessions Judge, Guntur made over to I Addl.

District Court, Guntur for disposal according to law and the case was transferred to V Addl. District and Sessions Court (FTC), Guntur as per the proceedings of the Hon'ble District Judge, Guntur in Dis.No. 937, dt. 22-9-2015 and the same was received by the V Addl. District Court (FTC), Guntur on 13-10-2015. On 7-1-2016 accused were examined and charges were framed. On 22-8-2017, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined, Exs.P1 to P5 and Ex.D1 were marked. On 28-8- 2017, P.Ws.4 to 8 were examined, Exs.P6 to P10 were marked. On 29-8-2017, 13 Fair

P.W.9 was examined and Ex.P11 was marked. On 30-8-2017, P.Ws. 10 & 11 were examined, Exs.P12 to 15 were marked. On 11-9-2017, P.W.12 was examined, Ex.P16 is marked. On 14-9-2017, P.W.13 was examined, Ex.P17 and Ex.P18 were marked and prosecution side evidence was closed on the same day. On 25-9-2017, accused 1 and 2 were examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C. for which they denied the incriminating material and reported no defence. On 3-4-2018, heard arguments of both sides. On 17-4-2018, judgment pronounced. Hence the delay.

Sd. K. Radha Ratnam

II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,GUNTUR.

FAC V ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE

(FTC),GUNTUR.

Copy to:

The Registrar(Judl.), Hon’ble High Court of A.P, Hyderabad.(CD)

1

IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS

JUDGE (FTC),GUNTUR.

PRESENT: Smt. K. Radha Ratnam,

II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, GUNTUR.

FAC VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC), GUNTUR.

Friday, the 8th day of December, 2017.

S.C. No.389/2015. Between:

State: represented by the Inspector of Police, Nagarampalem P.S.

..Complainant.

Vs

1. Vallepu Gopinath @ Gopi son of Dibba Rao. (A1)

2. Battula Ravi son of Babu Rao. (A2)

3. Maruboina Anjaneyulu @ Anji @ Kuragayala Anji, son of Srinivasa Rao, 22 years, C/Mudiraju, r/o KVP colony, Madhu Shop Center, Guntur. (A3)

4. Myla Siva Venkata Kishore, @ Siva, son of Sambasiva Rao, 24 years, C/Telaga, r/o Damodar Sanjeevaiah Nagar (D.S.Nagar), 6th line, R. Agraharam, Guntur (A4).

5. Barigala Yesu Babu @ Yesu, son of Yesu, 20 years, C/Madiga, Vikalangula Colony, 1st lane,

2nd cross road, Guntur. (A5). ..Accused.

(Case against A1 and A2 is abated as per docket orders dt. 29-5-17 and 25-7-16 respectively)

This case coming on 6-12-2017 before me for final hearing, in the presence of Additional Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of

Sri K.S.T. Singh, Advocate for A3 to A5 and case against A1 and A2 is abated as they died during the pendency of the case and upon perusing the material evidence on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The accused 1 to 5 are charged with the offence punishable under

Sec.302 r/w 34 of IPC on the allegation that they committed murder 2 of one Jitta Lakshman Rao husband of P.W.1 in Cr.No.87/14 of

Nagarampalem P.S.

2. Case against A1 and A2 is abated as they died pending proceedings

before this court.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased Jitta Lakshman

Rao, who is close friend to Bandi Nancharaiah (L.W.14) and Kunchala

Durga Chandra (L.W.16), who were involved in a murder case on the allegation that they committed murder of one Malleswara Rao @

Malli. In the said case, the prime witness is Vallepu Gopinath i.e., late

A1 herein. As per the version of prosecution, the deceased Lakshman

Rao pressurised A1 to give evidence in favour of Nancharaiah and

Durga Chandra for which the accused did not agree. Keeping in that mind, the accused committed murder of Lakshman Rao.

4.The case was taken on file for the offence punishable under

Sec. 302 r/w 34 of IPC by the Spl. Mobile Magistrate, Guntur against the accused. On appearance of the accused, copies of the case record relied upon by the prosecution were furnished to the accused as contemplated under Sec. 207 Cr.P.C. As the learned Magistrate satisfied that there is a prima facie material available against the accused for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 r/w 34 of IPC to try them, which is exclusively triable by the Hon'ble Sessions Court, committed the case vide PRC No.25/2014, under Sec. 209(a) of

Cr.P.C. In turn, the Hon'ble Court of Sessions, Sessions Division,

Guntur taken the case on file under Sec. 193 of Cr.P.C. for the offence 3 punishable under Sec. 302 r/w 34 of IPC against the accused by allotting Sessions Case No.389/2015, made over the same to I Addl.

District and Sessions Court, Guntur for disposal according to Law.

Thereafter, the I Addl. District Judge, Guntur transferred the case to VI

Addl. District Judge’s Court, Guntur as per the District Court proceedings in D.No.7855, dt. 5-12-2015.

5. On receipt of summons, accused appeared before this court and Sri K.S.T. Singh, advocate filed memo of appearance on behalf of the accused. After hearing, charge under Sec.302 r/w 34 of IPC has been framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, trial has commenced.

6.In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined P.Ws. 1 to 6 and got marked Exs.P1 to P7 on its behalf.

7. Heard both counsel on record.

8. The point for determination is that whether prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under

Sec.302 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt?

POINT:

9. In nutshell the case of prosecution is that, on 24-2-2014 around 11-00 a.m., late A1 went to the house of deceased, they went outside and returned, late A1 followed him and after the deceased entered into house, A1 stopped on a cement road near auto where the other accused were also there. Then, the deceased and his wife 4 (P.W.1) went to his in-laws house and returned within half an hour till then the accused were there. Then, the deceased left his wife at home and joined them. Thereafter, his wife slept. In the mid night at 1-30 their relative one Rama Krishna (P.W.5) came to their house and enquired about the deceased stating that the deceased was not responding for his phone. That in the early hours around 5-30 a.m., it came to light that the dead body of the deceased was found in the drainage canal with injuries in front of his house. Later, police came, conducted inquest, a report was given by P.W.1 which was drafted by her sister-in-law Rajya Lakshmi (P.W.4). Later, the police arrested the accused, the accused confessed the offence that they committed murder of Laskhman Rao with the help of knife and by sprinkling chills powder on the face of the deceased. The police recovered the knives used by the accused and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused.

10. The said case of the prosecution was not supported by the witnesses examined by the prosecution. P.W.1 is the wife, P.W.2 is the mother, P.W.4 is the sister of the deceased, P.W.5 is the husband of

P.W.4 while P.W.6 is the mother of P.W.1.

11.The prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 6 in support of its case. All these witnesses are circumstantial witnesses. None of them are direct witnesses to the incident. According to the prosecution, one

Vontipuli Ankamma Rao (L.W.8) and Atla Babu Rao (L.W.9) are the eye witnesses to the incident. But, the prosecution could not examine those two witnesses stating that Vontipuli Ankamma Rao is no more 5 and his death death certificate was filed and further the prosecution stated that another witness by name Babu Rao's whereabouts are not known and a certificate was filed into court issued by Village Revenue

Officer, Guntur Town. In the absence of the evidence of eye witnesses, the evidence of circumstantial witnesses examined by the prosecution is not helpful to it. In fact, they also did not support the case of the prosecution regarding the said circumstances on which the prosecution relied upon and as such all the witnesses have been subjected for cross-examination by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, by putting question under Sec.154 of Indian Evidence Act, but nothing could be elicited from them so as to elicit those circumstances to suspect the accused or to connect the accused with the alleged offence. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of all the other witnesses cited stating that no purpose would be served in examining them, in the absence of examination of the material eye witnesses to the incident.

12. In view of the said circumstances and as there is no incriminating material available on record as against the accused, the examination of accused under Sec.313 Cr.P.C. is dispensed with.

13.As from the above circumstances, this court conclude that absolutely, there is no evidence available on record to connect the accused with the alleged offence of murder and as such the A3 to A5 are entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, point is answered.

14. In the result, A3 to A5 are found not guilty of the offence 6 punishable under Sec. 302 r/w 34 of IPC and they are acquitted under Sec. 232 of Cr.P.C. for the said offence and their bail bonds shall stand cancelled. The unmarked case property i.e., blood stains earth, control earth, coffee colour tea shirt with blood stains, blue colour lungi with white dots with blood stains, blood stained knife, blood stained knife, blood stained knife, blood stained coconut cutting knife, blood stained coconut cutting knife, blood stained knife, blue colour full hands shirt with white and black stripes of Cargo company and cement colour jeans pant, rose colour full hands shirt with black stripes of Cargo company and cement colour jeans pant, brown colour full hands shirt and light black colour white shade jeans pant, white colour half hands shirt and light blue colour jeans pant, red,blue and white colour checks with full hands shirt and cement colour jeans pant and chillies powder kept in C.P.R. No.8/2017 shall ordered to be destroyed after lapse of appeal time. Case against A1 and A2 is abated as they died during the pendency of the case.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 8th day of December,2017.

Sd. K. Radha Ratnam

II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, GUNTUR.

FAC VI ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC), GUNTUR.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined.

For Prosecution: For defence: None

PW1-Jitta Ramana.

PW2-Jitta Sivamma.

PW3-Islavath Padma.

PW4-Yatrasu Rajyalakshmi.

P.W.5-Yatrasu Rama Krishna.

7

P.W.6-Jidugu Pullamma.

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1 is the signature of P.W.1 on the report.

Ex.P2 is the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1.

Ex.P3 is the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.2.

Ex.P4 is the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.3.

Ex.P5 is the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.4.

Ex.P6 is the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.5.

Ex.P7 is the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.6.

For defence: Nil

Sd. K. Radha Ratnam

II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, GUNTUR.

FAC VI ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC), GUNTUR.

//True Copy// 8

IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS

JUDGE (FTC),GUNTUR.

PRESENT: Smt. K. Radha Ratnam,

II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, GUNTUR.

FAC VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC), GUNTUR.

Friday, the 8th day of December, 2017.

S.C. No.389/2015.

1.Name of the Case Sessions Case No.389/15

2. Name of the committing

Magistrate Spl. Mobile Court, Guntur.

3. Name of the complainant State: represented by the Inspector of Police, Nagarampalem P.S.

4. Name of the Accused 1. Vallepu Gopinath @ Gopi son of Dibba Rao. (A1)

2. Battula Ravi son of Babu Rao. (A2)

3. Maruboina Anjaneyulu @ Anji @ Kuragayala Anji, son of Srinivasa Rao, 22 years, C/Mudiraju, r/o KVP colony, Madhu Shop Center, Guntur. (A3)

4. Myla Siva Venkata Kishore, @ Siva, son of Sambasiva Rao, 24 years, C/Telaga, r/o Damodar Sanjeevaiah Nagar (D.S.Nagar), 6th line, R. Agraharam, Guntur (A4).

5. Barigala Yesu Babu @ Yesu, son of Yesu, 20 years, C/Madiga, Vikalangula Colony, 1st lane, 2nd cross road, Guntur. (A5).

(Case against A1 and A2 is abated as per docket orders dt. 29-5-17 and 25-7-16 respectively) 5.Date of 16-10-2015

i) Filling ii)Apprehension of Accused 12-1-2016 (Appearance before sessions court) iii)Commencement of trial27-11-2017 iv)Closure of trial6-12-2017

v)Pronouncement of 8-12-2017 Judgment 6.Offence(s)Under Sec.302 r/w 34 of IPC 7.Plea of Accused Not Guilty 8.Finding of the Court Not Guilty

9. Sentence or order In the result, A3 to A5 are found not guilty of the offence punishable under Sec. 302 r/w 34 of IPC and they are acquitted under Sec. 232 of Cr.P.C. for the said offence and their bail bonds shall stand cancelled. The unmarked case property i.e., blood stains earth, control earth, coffee colour tea shirt with blood stains, blue colour lungi with white dots with blood stains, blood stained knife, blood stained knife, blood stained knife, blood stained coconut cutting 9 knife, blood stained coconut cutting knife, blood stained knife, blue colour full hands shirt with white and black stripes of Cargo company and cement colour jeans pant, rose colour full hands shirt with black stripes of Cargo company and cement colour jeans pant, brown colour full hands shirt and light black colour white shade jeans pant, white colour half hands shirt and light blue colour jeans pant, red,blue and white colour checks with full hands shirt and cement colour jeans pant and chillies powder kept in C.P.R. No.8/2017 shall ordered to be destroyed after lapse of appeal time. Case against A1 and A2 is abated as they died during the pendency of the case.

10.Explanation for Delay :- Originally this case was received from VI Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Guntur under PRC No.25/2014 against the accused by the Hon'ble Court of Sessions and the Sessions Judge, Guntur and made over to I A.D.J. court for disposal according to law. The I Addl. District and Sessions Court, Guntur transferred this case to VI Addl. District and Sessions Court, Guntur as per the District Court’s proceedings in D.No.7855, dt. 5-12-2015. On 13-11-2017 accused were examined and charge was framed. On 27-11-2017, P.W.1 is examined, Exs.P1 and P2 are marked. On 28-11-2017 P.Ws. 2 and 3 are examined, Exs.P3 & P4 are marked. On 29-11-2017, P.Ws. 4 and 5 are examined and Exs.P5 & P6 are marked. On 5-12-2017, P.W.6 is examined and Ex.P7 is marked. Prosecution side evidence was closed on 6-12-2017, as there is no incriminating material from the prosecution witnesses against the accused, examination of the accused under Sec.313 Cr.P.C. is dispensed, heard arguments on both sides on the same day. On 8-12-2017 Judgment pronounced. Hence the delay.

Sd. K. Radha Ratnam

II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, GUNTUR.

FAC VI ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC), GUNTUR.

Copy to:

The Registrar(Judl.), Hon’ble High Court of A.P, Hyderabad.(CD) //True Copy// 10

1 Fair

IN THE COURT OF V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS

JUDGE (FTC),GUNTUR.

PRESENT: Smt. K. Radha Ratnam,

II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, GUNTUR.

FAC V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC), GUNTUR.

Wednesday, the 2nd day of May, 2018.

S.C. No.377/2016.

Between:

State:Inspector of Police,

Ponnur Town P.S. ..Complainant.

Vs.

1. Kaluvukolu Manikya Rao son of Babu Rao, 28 years, Uppara, PBN college road, Nidubrolu, Ponnur Town.

2. Avula Yesubabu son of Ramanaiah, 25 years, Yerukala, DVC colony, 7th ward, Ponnur Town.

3. Thatha Srinu son of late Ramesh, 36 years, Gowda, under over bridge, 9th ward,

Nidubrolu, Ponnur Town. ..Accused.

This case coming on 1-5-2018 before me for final hearing, in the presence of Additional Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of

Sri Magbul Baig, Advocate for A1 and A2 and of Sri M. Ram Prabhu,

Advocate for A3 and upon perusing the material evidence on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the

Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The accused 1 to 3 are are charged with the offence punishable under Sec. 376 (G) of Indian Penal Code in Cr.No. 133/2015 of Ponnur

Town P.S.

2. This is a case of gang rape on a woman that occurred on 14-5- 2015 at 2-00 a.m. at opposite to Irrigation Office, Nidubrolu Over

Bridge, Nidubrolu, Ponnur Town and reported in the police station on the same day at 3-00 a.m. in which P.W.1 presented a report stating that while they were sleeping in their house, they 2 Fair heard some galata in front of Irrigation Office which is situated on southern side of the over bridge. P.W.1 along with P.Ws. 2 to 4 rushed there and found the accused A1 to A3 while attempting to commit rape on L.W.2 - xxxxxxxx one by one.

3.On 14-5-2016 at 3-00 a.m. P.W.1 came to police station and presented a report. On receipt of the report of P.W.1, L.W.13-Sk.

Bilaluddin, Farmer inspector of Police, Ponnur Town P.S. registered the same as a case in Cr.No.133/2015 under Sec.376 r/w 511 of I.P.C., at

Ponnur Town P.S. on 14-5-2015 at 2-00 a.m. Then the victim woman was sent to C.H.C., Ponnur for medical examination through WPC vide memo No.22/Hosp/2015.

4.During the course of investigation, L.W.13-Inspector of Police secured (L.W.9) Gadde Ananda Rao and (L.W.10)Kocchera Nageswara

Rao and P.W.1 visited the scene of offence, inspected the same, drafted scene observation report, duly attested by L.Ws. 9 and 10 to that effect. (L.W.13) Inspector of Police examined the witnesses under 161 of Cr.P.C. and recorded their detailed statements in case diary part-ll.

5.As per the statement of victim the section of law was altered from 376 r/w 511 of IPC to Sec.376(G) and memo had been filed

before the court to that effect.

6.The Medical Officer, CHC, Ponnur referred the victim woman i.e.,

L.W.2 to GGH, Guntur for medical examination and report. There she rejected for medical examinations. As none were present to look after her, she was kept in JMJ Ujwal Rehabilitation Home, Nagarjuna Nagar,

Nambur, Guntur District for safe custody.

7.After consent given by victim for medical examination, requisition was filed before the court with a request to permit to 3 Fair produce the victim before the Medical Officer, G.G.H., Guntur for medical examination. Accordingly, the Hon’ble court permitted as such. Then the victim woman produced before Dr. K. Swaruparani,

Asst. Professor of Government General Hospital, Guntur for medical examination and report.

8.During the course of further investigation on 16-5-2016 at 3.30 p.m. Inspector of Police arrested A1 to A3 and drafted a mediatornama in the presence of L.Ws. 9 and 10 and produced them

before the court for judicial remand.

9.L.W.14-Ch. Chandramouli, Circle Inspector of Police, Ponnur

Rural Circle taken up further investigation and obtained medical report from Dr. K. Swaruparani, Asst. Professor. Basing on the Scientific

Officer RFSL report i.e., B. Rama Krishna Rao, she opined that “evidence of sexual intercourse cannot be ruled out.”

10.Thus, it is evident that A1 to A3 are rendered themselves to be punished under Sec.376(G) of IPC.

11.Case was taken on file for the offences punishable under Sec.

376(G) of IPC by the Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Ponnur against the accused. On appearance of the accused, copies of the case record relied upon by the prosecution were furnished to the accused as contemplated under Sec. 207 Cr.P.C. As the learned Magistrate satisfied that there is a prima facie material available against the accused for the offence punishable under Sec. 376(G) of IPC to try them, which are exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, committed the case vide PRC No.18/2016, under Sec. 209(a) of Cr.P.C. In turn, the Court of Sessions, Sessions Division, Guntur taken the case under

Sec. 193 of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Sec. 376(G) of IPC against the accused by allotting Sessions Case No.377/2016, made 4 Fair over the same to Prl. Addl. District and Sessions Court, Guntur for disposal according to Law and the case is transferred to V Addl.

District and Sessions Court (FTC), Guntur as per the proceedings of the

Hon'ble District Judge, Guntur in Dis.No. 5641, dt. 26-8-2017 and the

same was received by the V Addl. District Court (FTC), Guntur on 14-9-2017.

12. On receipt of summons, accused appeared before this court. Sri

M. Ram Prabhu and Sri Magbul Baig, advocates filed memos of appearance on behalf of A1 and A3, A2 respectively. After hearing, charges under Sec. 376 (2) (g) against A1 to A3 has been framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, trial has commenced.

13.In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined P.Ws. 1 to 5 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5 on its behalf.

14. As there is no incriminating material available on record as against the accused, examination under Sec.313 Cr.P.C. is dispensed with.

15. Heard both counsel on record.

16.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused 1 to 3 of the offence under Sec.376(2)(g) of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

Point:

17.In nut shell the prosecution alleged that the accused 1 to 3 committed gang rape upon the victim woman, who is cited as L.W.2 and according to the prosecution that the said incident of gang rape was witnessed by P.W. 1 to 5 and they identified all the accused while 5 Fair they were committing the offence.

18.In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 5 the alleged witnesses to the incident. But, none of the witnesses supported the case of the prosecution and according to them, they did not know each other as well the victim and further they do not know the facts of the case. P.W.1 stated that she did not give any report to the police. According to her, her thumb impressions were obtained by police on some papers. But, she does not know as to why the police obtained her thumb impressions. The other witnesses also stated that police did not record their statements. In view of the said hostile evidence of the witnesses, the learned A.P.P. submitted them for examination by putting questions under Sec.154 of Indian Evidence Act with the permission of the court, but nothing could be elicited from them so as to discard their evidence. Their statements recorded by the police are marked as Exs.P2 to P5 respectively.

19.It is pertinent to note that the prosecution failed to examine the victim woman who is cited as L.W.2 stating that her whereabouts are not known. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor filed the certificate issued by Panchayat Officers reiterating that the victim was not traced in the given address and further the Circle Inspector of Police concerned filed a memo to that effect and with a request to close the evidence of L.W.2. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor submitted that the presence of L.W.2 the victim could not be secured in the near future.

20.Having considering the material i.e., submitted by the prosecution, this court considered the request made by the prosecution and closed the evidence of L.W.2.

21.Initially Schedule was issued on 11-12-2017, but the prosecution 6 Fair filed a memo to the effect that whereabouts of the victim woman are not traced out. Hence, this court collapsed the schedule enabling the police to secure the presence of the victim. But, ultimately, the prosecution represented that they could not secure the presence of

L.W.2 in the near future.

22.The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence all the other witnesses cited stating that there is no chance of conviction if the rest of the witnesses examined since L.W.2 the victim woman evidence is closed and the eye witnesses examined P.W.1 to

P.W.5 turned hostile.

23.From the discussions above all, this court conclude that absolutely, there is no evidence on record against the accused in bringing home their guilt with which they are charged. Hence, this court conclude that prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. As such this court conclude that accused 1 to 3 are entitled for acquittal. Thus, the point is answered accordingly.

24. In the result, A1 to A3 are found not guilty of the offence punishable under Sec. 376 (2) (g) of IPC and they are acquitted under Sec. 232 of Cr.P.C. for the said offence and their bail bonds shall stand cancelled. The unmarked case property vide CPR 1/18 i.e., broken red colour bangle pieces shall ordered to be destroyed after appeal time.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 2nd day of May,2018.

Sd. K. Radha Ratnam

II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,GUNTUR.

FAC V ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE

(FTC), GUNTUR.

7 Fair

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined.

For Prosecution: For defence: None

PW1-Tanneeru Suseela.

PW2-Neelam Santhi.

PW3-Maguluri Jayamma.

PW4-Goli Chandramma.

PW5-Neela Kavitha.

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1/--:161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1, dt.14.5.2015.

Ex.P2/--:161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.2, dt.15.5.2015.

Ex.P3/--:161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.3, dt.15.5.2015.

Ex.P4/--:161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.4, dt.15.5.2015.

Ex.P5/--:161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.5, dt.15.5.2015.

For defence: Nil

Material Objects Marked Nil

Sd. K. Radha Ratnam

II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,GUNTUR.

FAC V ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE

(FTC), GUNTUR.

IN THE COURT OF V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE

8 Fair

(FTC),GUNTUR.

PRESENT: Smt. K. Radha Ratnam,

II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, GUNTUR.

FAC V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC), GUNTUR.

Wednesday, the 2nd day of May, 2018.

S.C. No.377/2016.

1.Name of the CaseSessions Case No.377/16

2. Name of the committing Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Ponnur.

Magistrate

3. Name of the State:Inspector of Police, complainant Ponnur Town P.S.

4. Name of the Accused 1. Kaluvukolu Manikya Rao son of Babu Rao, 28 years, Uppara, PBN college road, Nidubrolu, Ponnur Town.

2. Avula Yesubabu son of Ramanaiah, 25 years, Yerukala, DVC colony, 7th ward, Ponnur Town.

3. Thatha Srinu son of late Ramesh, 36 years, Gowda, under over bridge, 9th ward, Nidubrolu, Ponnur Town.

5.Date of 19-8-2016

i) Filling ii)Apprehension of Accused (Appearance 16-9-2016

before sessions court)

iii)Commencement of 25-4-2018 trial iv)Closure of trial1-5-2018

v)Pronouncement of 2-5-2018 Judgment 6.Offence(s)Under Secs. 376 (2) (g) of IPC 7.Plea of Accused Not Guilty 8.Finding of the Court Not Guilty

9. Sentence or order In the result, A1 to A3 are found not guilty of the offence punishable under Sec. 376 (2) (g) of IPC and they are acquitted under Sec. 232 of Cr.P.C. for the said offence and their bail bonds shall stand cancelled. The unmarked case property vide CPR 1/18 i.e., broken red colour bangle pieces shall ordered to be destroyed after appeal time.

10.Explanation for Delay :- Originally this case was received from Addl. Junior

Civil Judge, Ponnur, vide PRC No.18/2016 against the accused by the Hon'ble

Court of Sessions and the Sessions Judge, Guntur made over to Prl. District Court, Guntur for disposal according to law and the case was transferred to V Addl. District and Sessions Court (FTC), Guntur as per the proceedings of the

Hon'ble District Judge, Guntur in Dis.No. 5641, dt. 26-8-2017 and the same was

received by the V Addl. District Court (FTC), Guntur on 28-8-2017. On 11-12- 9 Fair 2017 accused were examined and charge was framed. On 25-4-2018, P.W.1 was examined, Ex.P1 was marked. On 1-5-2018, P.Ws.2 to 5 were examined, Exs.P2 to P5 were marked, prosecution side evidence was closed, as there is no incriminating material available against the accused in the prosecution evidence, examination of the accused under Sec.313 Cr.P.C. is dispensed with, and heard arguments of both sides on the same day i.e., on 1-5-2018. On 2-5-2018, Judgment pronounced. Hence the delay.

Sd. K. Radha Ratnam

II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,GUNTUR.

FAC V ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE

(FTC),GUNTUR.

Copy to:

The Registrar(Judl.), Hon’ble High Court of A.P, Hyderabad.(CD) //True Copy//

SC 313/2017 1 Fair

IN THE COURT OF VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS

JUDGE (FTC),GUNTUR.

PRESENT: Smt. K. Radha Ratnam,

II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, GUNTUR.

FAC VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC), GUNTUR.

Thursday, the 24th day of May, 2018.

S.C. No.313/2017.

Between:

State:Represented by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer,

Thulluru Sub-Division, Thulluru. ..Complainant.

Vs.

1. Songa Raju son of Mariyadasu, 22 years, Mala by caste, resident of SC colony, Malladi village, Amaravathi Mandal.

2. Songa Venkayamma wife of Mariyadasu, 40 years, Mala by caste, resident of SC colony, Malladi village,

Amaravathi Mandal. ..Accused.

This case coming on 23-5-2018 before me for final hearing, in the presence of Additional Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of

Sri J. Ranga Raju and of Sri M. Satya Sai Babu, Advocates for the A1 and A2 and upon perusing the material evidence on record and the matter having stood over for consideration to this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The accused 1 and 2 are the son and mother. They charged with the offence punishable under Sec. 304-B r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code in Cr.No. 213/2016 of Amaravathi P.S.

2. The allegations that are levelled against the accused by the prosecution are as follows:

The deceased in this case is the wife of A1. The marriage of A1 with the deceased took place on 12-6-2015. At the time of marriage one lakh dowry, gold chain and motor cycle were given to the accused

SC 313/2017 2 Fair

on their demand. The marriage was consummated, they lead happy marital life for some time. Later, A1 developed illicit relationship with another lady and started harassing the deceased. The deceased conceived and in the 5th month she was taken to her parents house as per custom and was sent back to her in-laws house. During that period, A1 used to visit the house in intoxicated condition along with his concubine and when the deceased questioned him, A1 used to harass her both physically and mentally. When this was brought to the notice, the parents of the deceased put the same before the relatives, who in turn admonished A1. But, there is no change in the attitude of A1. The deceased was taken to her parents house for the purpose of delivery. During that period A1 met with an accident and his right leg was amputated. Later artificial leg was arranged. Since then A1 was residing at the parents house of the deceased and continued to harass her. Later, the deceased gave birth to a male child. Two months thereafter, A1 visited the house along with his concubine. Then the deceased and her father admonished and sent her back. Later, the deceased joined A1 at his house at his instance.

Since then A1 and his mother A2 began harassment over the deceased both physically and mentally for additional dowry from her parental house to start business. The deceased rejected the same and asked them that her parents already gave money to a tune of Rs.3,00,000/- by disposing of two plots. The deceased informed about the harassment to her parents, brother and sister on the occasion when they all met together on Christmas festival and on the next day deceased went away to her in-laws house. But, later the deceased disgusted over her life due to harassment made out by the accused and committed suicide by hanging herself to the fan with the help of

SC 313/2017 3 Fair

her half sari. On 31-12-2016 at 10-00 a.m. a notice was given to the police by her father as against the accused on which a case was registered against them, duly investigated into and charge sheet was filed into the court against them.

3.Case was taken on file for the offences punishable under Sec.

304-B r/w 34 of IPC by the II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli against the accused. On appearance of the accused, copies of the case record relied upon by the prosecution were furnished to the accused as contemplated under Sec. 207 Cr.P.C. As the learned Magistrate satisfied that there is a prima facie material available against the accused for the offence punishable under Sec. 304-B r/w 34 of IPC to try them, which is exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, committed the case vide PRC No.5/2017, under Sec. 209(a) of Cr.P.C.

In turn, the Court of Sessions, Sessions Division, Guntur taken the case under Sec. 193 of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Sec.

304-B r/w 34 of IPC against the accused by allotting Sessions Case

No.313/2017, made over the same to II Addl. District and Sessions

Court, Guntur for disposal according to Law and the case of transferred to VI Addl. District and Sessions Court (FTC), Guntur as per the proceedings of the Hon'ble District Judge, Guntur in Dis.No.

5641, dt. 26-8-2017 and the same was received by the VI Addl.

District Court (FTC), Guntur on 31-8-2017.

4. On receipt of summons, accused appeared before this court on 11-8-2016 and Sri J. Ranga Raju, advocate filed memo of appearance on behalf of A1 and A2. After hearing, charge under Sec. 304 r/w 34 of IPC against A1 and A2 has been framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, trial has commenced.

SC 313/2017 4 Fair

5.In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined P.Ws. 1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P1 and P2 on its behalf.

6.As there is no incriminating material available in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, examination of the accused under Sec. 313

Cr.P.C. is dispensed with.

7. Heard both counsel on record.

8.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution brought home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Sec.304-B r/w 34 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

Point:

9.In support of its contention, the prosecution has examined two witnesses, from out of 21 witnesses. Prosecution reported that the parents of the deceased who are cited as L.W.1-Gandham Bhaskara

Rao @ Chitteiah and L.W.2-Gandjham Mariyamma died and their death certificates are filed into the court.

10.P.W.1 is the sister while P.W.2 is the brother of the deceased.

The prosecution placed reliance on the evidence of these witnesses to prove the harassment meted out by the deceased in the hands of the accused. But, these two witnesses did not support the said case of the prosecution and according to them, there were no disputes between the deceased and A1 as alleged by the prosecution and there was no harassment by the accused against the deceased and the deceased committed suicide due to unbearable stomach-ache.

11. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor submitted that these two witnesses have been won over by the accused and they are acting to the tune of accused keeping in the mind the welfare of the child of

SC 313/2017 5 Fair

the deceased and he sought permission to put questions under

Sec.154 of Indian Evidence Act and with the permission of the court, the learned A.P.P. cross-examined the witnesses but nothing could be elicited from them, except suggesting as above which was denied by them. Their statements recorded by the police are marked as Exs.P1 and P2 as both the witnesses denied to state the same to the police.

11.The learned A.P.P. submitted that as the main and material witnesses L.W.1-Gandham Bhaskara Rao @ Chitteiah and L.W.2-

Gandjham Mariyamma are died and as the other family members of the deceased, who are examined as P.Ws. 1 and 2 did not support the prosecution case, no purpose would be served in examining the other witnesses cited and by so saying the learned A.P.P. has given up their evidence.

12. Hence, except the hostile evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2, nothing is available on record to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence for which they are charged. Hence, this court holds that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused 1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Sec. 304-B r/w 34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt and as such both the accused are entitled for acquittal Thus, the point is answered accordingly.

13. In the result, A1 and A2 are found not guilty of the offence punishable under Sec. 304-B r/w 34 of IPC and they are acquitted under Sec. 232 of Cr.P.C. for the said offence and their bail bonds shall stand cancelled. The unmarked case property i.e., green half saree vide C.P.R. No.3/2018 shall ordered to be destroyed after appeal time.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the

SC 313/2017 6 Fair

open Court, this the 24th day of May,2018.

II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,GUNTUR.

FAC VI ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE

(FTC), GUNTUR.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined.

For Prosecution: For defence: None

PW1-Gudise Prabhavathi.

PW2-Gandham Koteswara Rao.

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1/--:161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1.

Ex.P2/--:161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.2.

For defence: Nil

Material Objects Marked

Nil

II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,GUNTUR.

FAC VI ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE

(FTC), GUNTUR.

SC 313/2017 7 Fair

IN THE COURT OF VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE

(FTC),GUNTUR.

PRESENT: Smt. K. Radha Ratnam,

II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, GUNTUR.

FAC VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC), GUNTUR.

Thursday, the 24th day of May, 2018.

S.C. No.313/2017.

1.Name of the CaseSessions Case No.313/17

2. Name of the committing

Magistrate II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli.

3. Name of the complainant State:Represented by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, ThulluruSub-Division, Thulluru.

4. Name of the Accused 1. Songa Raju son of Mariyadasu, 22 years, Mala by caste, resident of SC colony, Malladi village, Amaravathi Mandal.

2. Songa Venkayamma wife of Mariyadasu, 40 years, Mala by caste, resident of SC colony, Malladi village, Amaravathi Mandal. 5.Date of 12-9-2017

i) Filling ii)Apprehension of Accused 11-12-2017 (Appearance before sessions court) iii)Commencement of trial23-05-2018 iv)Closure of trial23-05-2018

v)Pronouncement of 24-05-2018 Judgment 6.Offence(s)Under Sec. 304-B r/w 34 of IPC 7.Plea of Accused Not Guilty 8.Finding of the Court Not Guilty

9. Sentence or order In the result, A1 and A2 are found not guilty of the offence punishable under Sec. 304-B r/w 34 of IPC and they are acquitted under Sec. 232 of Cr.P.C. for the said offence and their bail bonds shall stand cancelled. The unmarked case property i.e., green half saree vide C.P.R. No.3/2018 shall ordered to be destroyed after appeal time.

10.Explanation for Delay: Originally this case was received from II Addl. Junior

Civil Judge, Sattenapalli , vide PRC No.5/2017 against the accused by the Court of

Sessions and the Sessions Judge, Guntur made over to II Addl. District Court, Guntur

for disposal according to law and the case was transferred to VI Addl. District and

Sessions Court (FTC), Guntur as per the proceedings of the Hon'ble District Judge,

Guntur in Dis.No. 5641, dt. 26-8-2017 and the same was received by the VI Addl.

SC 313/2017 8 Fair

District Court (FTC), Guntur on 31-8-2017. On 27-4-18 accused were examined and charge was framed. On 23-5-2018, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined, Exs.P1 and P2 were marked. Evidence of L.Ws. 5 to 21 was given up by the prosecution and prosecution side evidence was closed, as there is no incriminating material available in the prosecution evidence, examination of the under Sec.313 Cr.P.C. is dispensed with, heard arguments on the same day. On 24-5-2018, judgment pronounced. Hence the delay.

II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,GUNTUR.

FAC VI ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE

(FTC),GUNTUR.

Copy to:

The Registrar(Judl.), Hon’ble High Court of A.P, Hyderabad.(CD)

1

IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS

JUDGE (FTC),GUNTUR.

PRESENT: Smt. K. Radha Ratnam,

II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, GUNTUR.

FAC VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, GUNTUR.

Wednesday, the 22nd day of November, 2017.

S.C. No.260/2015. Between:

State: Inspector of Police, Pedakakani.

..Complainant.

Vs

Meda Srinivasa Rao son of Dharmaiah, 42 years, Yerukala, 2nd lane, Vijaya Bhaskar Nagar, Nambur Village,

Pedakakani Mandal, Guntur District. ..Accused.

This case is coming on this day before me for final hearing, in the presence of Additional Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri S. Brahmananda Reddy, Advocate for the accused and upon perusing the material evidence on record and the matter having stood over for consideration to this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The accused is charged with the offence punishable under Sec.

302 of IPC on the allegation that he committed murder of his wife the deceased by name Sivanagendramma.

02. The case of the prosecution is that the accused and deceased are husband and wife. Their marriage took place about 23 years back. They blessed with two children P.W.1 and a daughter by name

Divya Koteswari. Earlier to the date of incident of murder, the accused used to harass the deceased to get property of her parents registered in her name. That he also used to harass her physically and mentally for the same demand as well with a demand of money. That on 19-9-2014 when the accused beat the deceased, she gave a report 2 against the accused which is a subject matter of Cr.No.373/2014 under Sec.498-A, 324 of IPC and Sec.3 & 4 of D.P. Act of Pedakakani

P.S. and it was registered as C.C. No.632/2014 on the file of VI Addl.

Junior Civil Judge Court, Guntur. After the said incident, the deceased joined her parents. The accused developed enmity against the deceased and decided to murder her and he consulted with L.W.7-

Meda Nageswara Rao, L.W.8-Meda Ramaiah, L.W.9-Meda Sivaiah and at their instance, the deceased joined the accused one week prior to the murder. But, there is no change in the attitude of the accused and he continued to harass the deceased for the same purpose. That on 27-12-2014 around 6-00 a.m., the accused bluntly committed murder of his wife the deceased by stabbing her with a kitchen knife.

That on hearing the alarms made by the deceased, the neighbour

Meda Venkateswarlu rushed to their house and found the accused was coming out of the house through the kitchen room armed with a kitchen knife with blood stains on his clothes by proclaiming that he murdered his wife, thrown the knife in the rear room and had ran away from there after changing his clothes. P.W.3 informed about the incident to relatives. On the report given by P.W.1, the son of the deceased, case was registered against the accused, investigated into, arrested the accused, recorded his confession of commission of offence and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed into court against the accused.

3.The case was taken on file for the offence punishable under

Sec. 302 of IPC by the VI Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Guntur against the accused. On appearance of the accused, copies of the case 3 record relied upon by the prosecution were furnished to the accused as contemplated under Sec. 207 Cr.P.C. As the learned Magistrate satisfied that there is a prima facie material available against the accused for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 of IPC to try him, which is exclusively triable by the Hon'ble Sessions Court, committed the case vide PRC No.27/2015, under Sec. 209(a) of Cr.P.C. In turn, the Hon'ble Court of Sessions, Sessions Division, Guntur taken the case under Sec. 193 of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Sec.

302 of IPC against the accused by allotting Sessions Case

No.260/2015, made over the same to I Addl. District and Sessions

Court, Guntur for disposal according to Law. Thereafter, the I Addl.

District Judge, Guntur transferred the case to VI Addl. District Judge’s

Court, Guntur as per the District Court proceedings in D.No.3715, dt.

10-6-2016.

4. On receipt of summons, accused appeared before this court on 26-8-2015 and Sri N. Prasad Reddy, advocate filed memo of appearance on behalf of the accused. After hearing, charge under

Sec.302 of IPC has been framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, trial has commenced.

5.In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined P.Ws. 1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5 on its behalf.

6.As there is no incriminating material available in the prosecution evidence, examination of the accused under Sec.313 Cr.P.C. is 4 dispensed with.

7. Heard both counsel on record.

8. The point for determination is that whether prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under

Sec.302 of Indian Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt?

POINT:

9. In nutshell the case of the prosecution is that the accused committed murder of his wife by stabbing her with the help of kitchen knife.

10. In support of its contention, the prosecution relied on the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 4. P.W.1 is the son of the accused and the deceased. P.W.2 is the father of the deceased, P.W.3 is a neighbour and P.W.4 is an elder.

11. Of all the whitenesses examined, P.W.3 is main and material witness as according to prosecution, who actually saw the accused armed with a knife immediately after committing murder of the deceased and while proclaiming that he murdered his wife. But, this witness did not support the case of the prosecution. According to him, as on the date of death of deceased he went to Sabarimali and later he was informed about the same and further deposed that he does not know how the deceased died.

12. P.W.1 is the son of the deceased. P.W.2 is the father of the deceased. P.W.4 is an elder. Even according to the prosecution case, they are not direct witnesses to the incident and they all heard about 5 the incident subsequent to it. Hence, the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 4 is not at all useful to the prosecution case in bringing home the guilt of the accused for the offence with which he charged.

13.The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of all other witnesses cited stating that in view of the hostility of the main and material witnesses, no purpose would be served in examining the other witnesses cited.

14.From the evidence available on record, this court can conclude that absolutely there is no evidence either direct or circumstantial against the accused either to prove that he harassed the deceased physically and mentally in demand of amount and property and further he committed murder of his wife the deceased beyond all reasonable doubt and as such the accused is entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, the point is answered.

15. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for offence punishable under Sec. 302 of IPC and he is acquitted under Sec. 232 of Cr.P.C. for the said offence and his bail bonds shall stand cancelled.

The unmarked case property i.e., one steel knife with blood stain and hair black colour grip length 10”, some broken bangles collected beside deceased body, blood stain pillow cover, yellow colour blouse with flower design, yellow and red flower designed sari and yellow colour inner langa kept in C.P.R. No.4/2017 shall ordered to be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the 6 open Court, this the 22nd day of November,2017.

Sd.K. Radha Ratnam

II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, GUNTUR.

FAC VI ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, GUNTUR.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined.

For Prosecution: For defence: None

PW1-Meda Dilip Kumar.

PW2-Garika Kotaiah.

PW3-Meda Venkateswarlu.

PW4-Meda Ramaiah.

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1 is the signature of P.W.1 on the report.

Ex.P2 is the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1.

Ex.P3 is the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.2.

Ex.P4 is the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.3.

Ex.P5 is the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.4.

For defence: Nil

Sd.K. Radha Ratnam

II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, GUNTUR.

FAC VI ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, GUNTUR.

//True Copy// 7

IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS

JUDGE (FTC),GUNTUR .

PRESENT: Smt. K. Radha Ratnam,

II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, GUNTUR.

FAC VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, GUNTUR.

Wednesday, the 22nd day of November, 2017.

S.C. No.260/2015.

1.Name of the Case Sessions Case No.260/15

2. Name of the committing

Magistrate VI Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Guntur.

3. Name of the complainant State: Inspector of Police, Pedakakani. (Cr.No.488/2014)

4. Name of the Accused Meda Srinivasa Rao son of Dharmaiah, 42 years, Yerukala, 2nd lane, Vijaya Bhaskar Nagar, Nambur Village, Pedakakani Mandal, Guntur District.

5.Date of 8-7-2015

i) Filling ii)Apprehension of Accused 26-8-2015 (Appearance before sessions court) iii)Commencement of trial20-11-2017 iv)Closure of trial21-11-2017

v)Pronouncement of 22-11-2017 Judgment 6.Offence(s)Under Sec.302 of IPC 7.Plea of Accused Not Guilty 8.Finding of the Court Not Guilty

9. Sentence or order In the result, the accused is found not guilty for offence punishable under Sec. 302 of IPC and he is acquitted under Sec. 232 of Cr.P.C. for the said offence and his bail bonds shall stand cancelled. The unmarked case property i.e., one steel knife with blood stain and hair black colour grip length 10”, some broken bangles collected beside deceased body, blood stain pillow cover, yellow colour blouse with flower design, yellow and red flower designed sari and yellow colour inner langa kept in C.P.R. No.4/2017 shall ordered to be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

10. Explanation for Delay:- Originally this case was received from VI Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Guntur under PRC No.27/2015 against the accused by the Hon'ble Court of Sessions and the Sessions Judge, Guntur and made over to I A.D.J. court for disposal according to law. While the matter was stand posted for hearing on charges for both sides, I Addl. District and Sessions Court, Guntur transferred this case to VI Addl. District and Sessions Court, Guntur as per the District Court’s proceedings in Dis.No.3715, dt.10-6-2016. On 11-1-2017 accused was examined and charge was framed. On 20-11-2017, P.Ws.1 to 3 are examined, Exs.P1 to P4 are 8 marked. On 21-11-2017 P.W.4 is examined, Ex.P5 is marked and prosecution side evidence was closed on the same day. On 22-11-2017 as there is no incriminating material from the prosecution witnesses against the accused, examination of the accused under Sec.313 Cr.P.C. is dispensed, heard arguments on both sides and Judgment pronounced on the same day. Hence the delay. Sd.K. Radha Ratnam

II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, GUNTUR.

FAC VI ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, GUNTUR.

Copy to:

The Registrar(Judl.), Hon’ble High Court of A.P, Hyderabad.(CD) //True Copy//