Smt.K.Sailaja
III Addl District Judge
Rangareddy, PDJ Court Complex · Rangareddy · Telangana
Based on 2 recent ordersSmt.K.Sailaja, III Addl District Judge, is posted at Rangareddy, PDJ Court Complex, Rangareddy, Telangana, India. 2 court orders on record since 2022. 2 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles SC cases.
Featured Judgments
Page No. 1 of 37
SC 281 of 2021
`
IN THE COURT OF III-ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE,
RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B. NAGAR
Present: Smt K. SAILAJA, III-Addl.District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District.
Dated this the 18th day of May, 2022
SC No. 281 of 2021
1.Name of the complainant: The State of Telangana through Shamshabad, Police Station.
2.Name of the Accused: Pallapolu Raju @ S. Raju @ Thimmaiah S/o. Late Anjaiah, aged about 38 Years, Occ: Labour Work in Mumtaz Garden at Thondupally Village of Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. N/o. Rented house of H. No. 9-126/2, Indira nagar, Chanda Nagar, Sherilingampally, Hyderabad and Kusnoor Village of Raikod Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
3.Offence under Section: U/s. 302,379 and 201 of IPC.
4.Cr. No. and Name of Police : Cr. No. 252/2019 of Shamshabad, Police Station Station
5.P.R.C. No.: 44 of 2020 6Case committed by: XIV-Addl Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Rajendernagar.
7.Plea of the accused: Pleaded not guilty
8.Finding of the Court: Found guilty
9.Sentence or Order: In the result, the accused is sentenced to under go Rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years for the offence punishable under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code, Further the accused is sentenced to under go simple imprisonment for a period of five years and pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) in default Simple Imprisonment for a period of two months for the offecne under Section 201 of Indian Penal Code and he is sentenced to Life Imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.
The seized material objects ie., MO-1 is the 90ml empty plastic liquor bottle, MO-2 is the Key, MO-4 is the six broken teeths, MO-5 is the Five
Page No. 2 of 37
SC 281 of 2021
` beedies, MO-6 is the Empty water packet, MO-7 is the One pair of Paragon slippers, MO-8 is the Dhoti, MO-9 is the One Himco company Key, MO-10 is the torned underwear, MO-11 is the Grey Colour Jeans Pant, MO-12 is the Mixed Colour Shirt, MO- 13 is the Long stick,MO-14 is the Banyan, MO-15 is the Towel, MO-16 is the Waist Thread shall be destroyed after the appeal period is over, if no appeal is preferred.
MO-3 is the Mobile Phone of the deceased shall handed over to the deceased daughter/PW-8 or PW-9.
10. Name of the Counsel for : Sri N. Raveender, Addl.Public Prosecutor for the the prosecutionState.
11. Name of the counsel for : Sri N. Ramana Bhagwan, Advocate for accused Accused(Legal Aid).
This case coming on this day before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri N. Ramana Bhagwan, Learned Counsel for the accused (Legal Aid Counsel) and Sri N. Raveendar, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State and upon perusal of the material papers on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-
J U D G M E N T
1.The above named accused person is prosecuted for the offence under
Section 302, 379 and 201 of IPC.
2.The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 14.06.2019 at 0825 hours received a complaint from Sri. Sandamoni Nagesh S/o. Pochaiah, aged about 34 Years,
Occ: Village Revenue Officer of Thondupally Village, in which he stated that on 14.06.2019 at about 0615 hours he received a phone call from Thondupally
Village, V.R.A Sri Janakiram S/o. Baloji who informed that one unknown male dead body was found at Firangi Canal with bleeding injuries on his face in the limits of Thondupally Village, Immediately he along with V.R.A Janakiram rushed to the spot and where they have noticed that one unknown male dead body aged about 45-50 years, height about 5.2 feet wearing white colour full baniyan, white and blue colour towel and orange and red colour waist thread was lying on
Page No. 3 of 37
SC 281 of 2021
` the ground. Further they found slippers, white colour dhothi/Pancha and white, green, block, red, yellow and blue colour lines torn inner wear lying near the deceased and he appears to be a Hindu and they suspect that some unknown person/persons have committed murder of the deceased with unknown weapon at outskirts or in the premises of Firangi Canal at Thondupally village and he suspects that this incident might have been occurred on 13.06.2019 night hours and therefore, he prays to take action in this regard.
3.On receipt of the report the police registered the case against the accused under Section 302, 379 and 201 of IPC. During the investigation LW-29
Sri R. Venkatesh, first investigating officer who arrested the accused has examined and recorded the detailed statements of LW-1 Sri. Sandamoni
Nagesh, LW-2 M. Janakiram, LW-3 P. Gopal at the scene of offence and incorporated in part-II CD. He further inspected the scene of offence minutely and secured the presence of two mediators LW-18 M. Om Prasad and LW-19 G.
Balakrishna and conducted scene of offence panchanama and brought all the observations on record in crime details form and seized 1. Six teeths, 2. One empty original choice 90ml liquor bottle with cap, 3. one empty aqua ruchi water packet, 4. Beedis 5 in Nos. 5. White colour pancha/Dhothi, 6. White, green, black, red, yellow and blue colour lines torn inner wear, 7. one pair of slippers, 8. one
HIMCO company key under cover of crime detail form, and thereafter utilized the services of clues team by LW-4 Sri K. Kiran Kumar PC 4073 who preserved the material objects 1. Blood stained earth, 2. Control earth at scene and utilized the service of dog squad ie., LW-5 M. Ashok PC 8263 and the Sniper Dog moved in the area but nothing could be achieved. In due course of investigation LW-29
R. Venkatesh has examined and recorded the detailed statements of LW-4 Sri K.
Kiran Kumar, LW-5 M. Ashok and incorporated their versions in part II CD further
Page No. 4 of 37
SC 281 of 2021
` the LW-29 Sri R. Venkatesh has held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of mediators LW-18 M. Omprasad and LW-19 G. Balakrishna.
Later shifted the dead body to Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad through escort PC 5369 and subjected the body preservation. On the same day LW-29 Sri
R. Venkatesh searched the seized Original Choice 90ml liquor bottle label bar code through VERIT APP and it has shown that the said quarter was sold by
Sadana Wines at Shamshabad. Immediately LW-29 Sri R. Venkatesh has deputed the LW-6 Sri N. Chandra Shekhar PC 130, LW-7 B. Anji Babu PC 5443 with instructions to find out sold wine shop of seized Original Choice 90 ml quarter bottle which is found in the scene of offence. On that the deputed staff visited the Sadana Wines shop,where the LW-8 K. Ravinder found, on enquiry he stated he sold the same quarter from their Sadana wines. Accordingly LW-29 Sri R.
Venkatesh has summoned him to police station. Further examined and recorded detailed statements of LW-6 N. Chandra Shekhar PC 130, LW-7 B. Anji Babu PC 5443, K. Ravinder which is incorporated in part-II CD.
4.That on 15.06.2019 the LW-29 Sri R. Venkatesh deputed the LW-16 Sri P.
Krishnamachary HC 3415 LW-17 N. Thirupathi Reddy PC 3267 with instructions to show the photographs of deceased at labour adda (Spots) in the limits of
Shamshabad town to identify the deceased. On the same day the LW-16 and 17 visited the labour adda at Shamshabad Railway Kaman and while showing the photographs of deceased the LW-9 Smt Kummera Anjamma identified the deceased as her father. Immediately he took her to Osmania General Hospital
Mortuary and shown the dead body of the deceased and she confirmed him as her father namely Gajula Pedda Venkatesh S/o. Balappa. Further LW-29 Sri R.
Venkatesh has deputed one ASI Sri K. Gopal for post mortem examination and handed over the corpse of deceased to their family members for final rites. On
Page No. 5 of 37
SC 281 of 2021
` the same day LW-20 Sri K. V. Ramanamurthy conducted post mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased/Gajula Pedda Venkatesh and opined that death due to crush injury to head, and thereafter the dead body was handed over the the kith and kin of deceased under proper acknowledgment. Further LW-29 Sri R. Venkatesh has examined and recorded detailed statements of LW-9 Kummera Anjamma, LW-10 Kummera Venkatesh and LW-11 Bhairagi Laxmi which is incorporated in part-II CD and collected mobile number of deceased from LW-9 and on the same LW-29 addresed a letter to LW-26/Nodal Officer AP & TS Circle, Vodafone-Idea limited through
DCP of Shamshabad zone, Cyberabad with a request to provide the CDRs of deceased mobile No. 7036177131 and obtained the CDR from LW-26 in further course of investigation. That on the analysis and examination of CDR of deceased mobile number 7036177131, it shown that after commission of this offence the same number was recharged on 14.06.2019 at 19:48:49 hours and contacted to 9573780826, 9849673872 on the same day and next day also by the deceased mobile phone. Immediately LW-29 searched addresses of phone number 9573780826, 9849673872 in the third eye investigation tool of
Telangana police and it came to know that 9573780826 phone number address is LW12/Vakiti Thirupathamma R/o. H. No. 2-117, Kodur Village, of Mahaboob
Nagar District, immediately LW-29 deputed the LW-16 Sri. P. Krishnamachary HC 3415 LW-17 N. Thirupathi Reddy PC 3267 and WPC 7728 Kumari. Manjula Rathod with instructions to verify the complicity of LW-12 Vakiti Thirupathamma in this case. Further the deputed staffs were proceeded to Mumtaz Garden at
Outskirts of Thondupally Village, Shamshabad, where verified the complicity of
LW-12 and her husband namely Pallapolu Raju @ S. Raju @ Thimmaiah. But, her husband has under suspicious manner had not given proper answer and hesitated. Immediately the deputed staff apprehended him and brought to
Page No. 6 of 37
SC 281 of 2021
` police station along with his wife and produced before LW-29 Sri R. Venkatesh has examined and recorded the statement of LW-12 Vakiti Thirupathamma in detail. On thorough interrogation of the accused voluntarily confessed to have commit this offence and admitted his guilt of offence. Accordingly LW-29 secured the presence of LW21 K. Yadagiri, LW-22 Rachamalla Babu and recorded detailed confessional statement of the accused, and after recording the confessional statement of the accused, the accused lead the police and panchas
LW-21 K. Yadagiri, LW-22 Rachamalla Babu to his rented room at Mumtaz Garden and where the police seized 1. One Small Mobile Phone ie., Micromax with Airtel 4G Sim card, IMEI No. 911518205068819 and 911518205068827, 2. One Grey colour Jeans pant and 3. White, black, chocolate colour full sleeves shirt under the cover of separate seizure report in the presence of same mediators. Further, in the pursuance of the confession made by the accused lead the police and panchas LW-21 and LW-22 to near scene of offence, beside of mud road and
Railway track, where the police seized one long stick length about 5’.9” feets with blood stained (which is used to kill the deceased) under cover of separate seizure report in the presence of same mediators. Later accused was brought to police station and affected his arrest and on completion of investigation has laid charge sheet was filed under Sections 302, 379 and 201 of IPC.
5.The cognizance was taken by the XIV-Addl Metropolitan Magistrate,
Cyberabad at Rajendranagar for the offence under Sections 302, 379 and 201 of
IPC.
6.On appearance of the accused, copies of the documents were furnished to him under Section 208 Cr.P.C., and as the offence punishable under Sections 302, 379 and 201 of IPC is exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, and this case was committed to the Court of Sessions under Section 209 Cr.P.C., and the same was made over to this court for disposal, in accordance with law.
Page No. 7 of 37
SC 281 of 2021
` 7.Under Section 226 of Cr.P.C the learned Addl.Public Prosecutor opened the case of the prosecution.
8. On appearance of the accused in this court, and after hearing both the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the prosecution and the learned counsel for the accused and upon considering the material on record, a charge under Sections 302, 379 and 201 of IPC has been framed against him, read over and explained in his known language for which he denied the charge, pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.
9.Under Section 230 Cr.P.C schedule for prosecution evidence was issued.
10.In support of its case, under Section 231 of Cr.P.C the prosecution has examined as many as 24 witnesses out of whom PW1-1 is the defacto complainant, PW-2 is the circumstantial witness, PW-3 is the circumstantial witness, PW-4 who visited the scene and preserved the material objects, PW-5 is the Handler of Sniffer dog, PW-6 is the independent witness, PW-7 is the circumstantial witness and worked of Sadana wines, PW-8 is the circumstantial witness and elder daughter of deceased, PW-9 is the circumstantial witness and second daughter of deceased, PW-10 is the witness and wife of accused, PW-11 is the witness and collected CCTV footages at toddy compound, PW-12 is the circumstantial witness and recharged the deceased phone number, PW-13 is the panch witness for the scene of offence cum inquest and seizure, PW-14 who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, PW-15 who is the witness and apprehended the accused, PW-16 is the panch witness for confession and recovery of panchanama of the accused, PW-17 is the circumstantial witness and relative of accused, PW-18 is the Nodal Officer who issued CDR and CAF details of deceased, PW-19 who conducted Test
Page No. 8 of 37
SC 281 of 2021
` Identification Parade of accused, PW-20 is the Nodal Officer issued CAF and
CDRs of LW-12 and LW-23, PW-21 who issued FIR and apprehended the accused,
PW-22 is the circumstantial witness and worker of toddy compound, PW-23 is the first investigating officer and arrested the accused and PW-24 who filed charge sheet. Ex.P1 is the complaint, Ex.P2 is the Crime Details, Ex.P3 is the scene of offence panchanama, Ex.P4 is the inquest panchanama, Ex.P.5 is the post mortem examination report, Ex.P6 are the two photographs, Ex.P7 is the relevant portion of recovery panchanama, Ex.P8 is the relevant portion of recovery panchanama, Ex.P9 is the attested Photostat copy of application form of Gajula Pedda Venkataiah, Ex.P10 is the requisition for conducting Test
Identification Parade, Ex.P11 is the Test identification Proceedings, Ex.P12 is the Call data record sheets consisting of four pages, Ex.P13 and P14 are the customer application forms, Ex.P15 is the 65-B certificate issued by PW-20’s office certifying the call datas. Ex.P16 is the FIR and Ex.P17 is the FSL report,
MO-1 is the 90ml empty plastic liquor bottle, MO-2 is the Key, MO-3 is the mobile Phone, MO-4 is the six broken teeths, MO-5 is the Five beedies, MO-6 is the Empty water packet, MO-7 is the One pair of Paragon slippers, MO-8 is the
Dhoti, MO-9 is the One Himco company Key, MO-10 is the torned underwear,
MO-11 is the Grey Colour Jeans Pant, MO-12 is the Mixed Colour Shirt, MO-13 is the Long stick, MO-14 is the Banyan, MO-15 is the Towel, MO-16 is the Waist
Thread.
11.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., and he denied the incriminating evidence appearing against him and reported no defence evidence.
12.Heard the arguments from both sides.
Page No. 9 of 37
SC 281 of 2021
` 13.The prosecution filed Memorandum of Written arguments in which the facts of the case and the progress were narrated which needs not reputation.
According to the prosecution there are no material contradiction or omission nor improvement made by the prosecution witnesses and there is a clear corroboration between them. It is further submitted that the suggestions put by the defense counsel denied by the witnesses and he relied on the decision reported in
Bharwada Bhonginbhai Hirjibhai Vs. State of Gujrat in 1983 Crl. L.J.
1096. Wherein it was held that “Over much importance cannot be attached to minor discrepancies and omissions and contradictions, if any, they need not be considered with hyper technicalities.
The prosecution further relied on V.K. Mishra and another Vs. State of
Uttarakhand in 2015 (2) ALD (Crl.) 533 SC. Wherein it was held that “FIR – not expected to contain all details of prosecution case and it would be sufficient if broad facts of prosecution case.
The prosecution further relied on the decision reported in State of Kerala
Vs. M.M. Mathew, AIR 1978 SC 1571. Wherein it was held that the courts of law have to judge the evidence before them by applying the well recognized test of basic human probabilities. The evidence of the investigating officers cannot be branded as highly interested on ground that they want that the accused be convicted. Such a presumption runs counter to the well recognized principle that prima facie public servants must be presumed to act honestly and conscientiously and their evidence has to be assessed on its intrinsic worth and cannot be discarded merely on the ground that being public servants, they are interested in the success of their case.
Page No. 10 of 37
SC 281 of 2021
` He further relied on the decision reported in Yogesh Singh Vs. Mahabeer
Singh and others in 2017 (1) ALD (Crl.) 57 (SC). Wherein it was held that “A survey of the judicial pronouncements of this Court on this point leads to the inescapable conclusion that the evidence of a closely related witnesses is required to be carefully scrutinised and appreciated before any conclusion is made to rest upon it, regarding the convict/accused in a given case. Thus, the evidence cannot be disbelieved merely on the ground that the witnesses are related to each other or to the deceased. In case the evidence has a ring of truth to it, is cogent, credible and trustworthy, it can, and certainly should, be relied upon”.
He further relied on the decision reported in State of Utterpradesh Vs.
Krishna Gopal and another in 1988 AIR 2154. Doubts may be actual and substantial doubts as to the guilt of the accused-person arising from the evidence, or from the lack of it, as opposed to mere vague apprehensions. A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or a merely possible doubt; but a fair doubt based upon reason and common-sense. It must grow out of the evidence in the case. The concepts of probability, and the degrees of it, cannot obviously be expressed in terms of units to be mathematically enumerated as to how many of such units constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt. There is an unmistakable subjective-element in the evaluation of the degrees of probability and the quantum of proof. Forensic probability must, in the last analysis, rest on a robust common-sense and, ultimately, on the trained intuitions of the judge.
While the protection given by the criminal process to the accused-persons is not to be eroded, at the same time, uninformed legitimization of trivialities would make a mockery of administration of criminal justice.
14.The state defence counsel submitted that the accused has been falsely implicated in the case and there are minor and major discrepancy appearing in
Page No. 11 of 37
SC 281 of 2021
` the evidence of the prosecution. Hence, the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.
15.Before adverting to the discussion I would like to discuss the evidence adduced by the Prosecution Witnesses elaborately as hereunder:
16.PW1/ S. Nagesh, who is defacto complainant, deposed that he is working as Village Revenue Officer of Tandupalli Village of Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga
Reddy District. On 14.6.2019 at about 06:15 AM, he received phone call from
VRA Janaki Ram stating that one unknown male dead body laying at Firangi
Canal with bleeding injuries on his face in the limits of Thondupalli Village. Then, he along with VRA Janaki Ram went to Firangi Canal and found the male dead body aged about 45-50 years, height 5.2’, weight color full banyan, white and blue color towel and orange and red color waist thread and also found slippers, white color dhothi, white, green, black, red, yellow and blue color underwear and known to be Hindu Community and suspected some persons have committed murder of the said person, which might have been occurred on 13.6.2019 during night time and then he gave written complaint to police. Ex P1 is the Complaint.
17.PW-1 during his cross-examination has stated that he has informed to his
MRO about the dead body found at Firangi Canal, he did not obtain any written permission from MRO for giving complaint to police.
18.PW2/M. Janaki Ram who is the circumstantial witness, deposed that he is working as Village Revenue Assistant of Tandupalli Village of Shamshabad
Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. On 14.6.2019 at about 06:15 AM, he got information from P. Gopal, Agriculturist about lying of Male dead body at Firangi
Page No. 12 of 37
SC 281 of 2021
` Canal over phone and then Immediately, he informed to PW1 and then himself and PW1 went to said Place and found the dead body of male lying in the Firangi
Canal having injuries on face.
19.PW3/P. Gopal who is the circumstantial witness deposed that in the year 2019 on one day at about 06:00 AM, he went to his cattle shed in order to fetch milk from the buffalo, which is situated by the side of Firangi Canal, where he found one male dead body having injuries on face. Then, he immediately went to Panchyat Office and informed to PW2.
20.PW4/K. Kiran Kumar who visited the scene and preserved the material objects deposed that he is working as constable in Finger prints bureau, FSL,
Hyderabad Shamshabadh Zone, Cyberabad. Previously he worked as constable in Clues team from 2016 to October, 2020. On 14.6.2019 station house officer,
Shamshabad has informed clues teams that a murder has taken place Phirangi cannel of Thondupally village and asked them to come there. Accordingly, himself, HG - D. Madhusudhan and Driver went to the spot at 9.00 am and found one male dead body having injuries on face and back, and as per the instructions of Investigation officer he had collected blood stains and control earth from the place and hand-over to Investigating officer.
21.PW5/M. Ashok who is the handler of Sniffer dog deposed that on 14.06.2019 his officer has received information SHO Shamshabad about murder at Thondupally village. Then, he along with sniffer dog by name Spider went to the spot situated at Firangi cannel Thondupally and found male dead body.
Then, the dog spider after smelling the dead body and place went further to an extent of 800 mts but no clues were found and the same was informed to
Station House officer.
Page No. 13 of 37
SC 281 of 2021
` 22.PW6/N. Chandrashekhar who is the witness in this case deposed that on 14.06.2019 at about 9.30 or 10.00 am Their SHO has informed him over phone that one male dead body was lying near firangi cannal situated at Thondupally and asked him to go there. Accordingly, he went to the place by 10.30 am and found male dead body having injuries on face. Then, he searched for some clues and found Original choice of 90 ml liquor bottle which is near by the dead body.
Then, S.H.O came to place where he had showed the said bottle who asked him to verify from where the said liquor bottle was purchased, with the help of phone app we could able to trace out the wine shop name MS Sadhana wines situated at Shamshabad. He can identify the liquor bottle. MO1 is the 90 ml empty plastic liquor bottle, after that himself and B.Anji babu PC-5443 went to the wines shop and enquired as to who purchased the said liquor bottle who stated that they have sold the said liquor bottle to one customer, but he did not disclose the name.
23.PW7/K. Ravinder who is the circumstantial witness and worker of Sadana wines deposed that on 14.6.2019 as usual he had opened the shop at 10.00 am.
He had sold MO1 to one customer for Rs.55/-. On 18.6.2019 two constables came to his shop and enquired about selling of MO1. Then, he had identified the
MO1 which was sold by him.
24.PW8/Kummera Anjamma circumstantial witness and elder daughter of deceased deposed that the deceased Gajula Peddha Venkatiah is her father. On 15.6.2019 they went to labor adda and enquired about where abouts of her father. By then the police who were there in search of family of her father has shown her father photograph and on seeing photograph of her father she had identified and disclosed about her relation. Then, she informed to LW11-Smt.
Bairagi Laxmi. Then, all their family members went to Osmania Hospital where
Page No. 14 of 37
SC 281 of 2021
` they found the dead body of their father and the injuries on the face. Her father was aged about 56 years. After conducting PME Police stated that one Raju has killed her father as he developed illegal intimacy with LW12-Vakati
Thirupathamma. She had seen the Raju and can identify him and she identified the accused standing in the dock yard as Raju who is having illicit intimacy with
LW12-Vakiti Thirupathamma. She came to know that because of illegal intimacy the accused has killed her father.
25.PW-8 during her cross-examination has stated that she tried to contact her father over her phone which was responding as switched off.
26.PW9/B. Laxmi who is the circumstantial witness and second daughter of the deceased deposed that the deceased Gajula Venkataiah is her father. She deposed that she knew you. On 15.06.2019 PW-8 informed her over phone stating that some body has killed their father. Then, she went to Osmania
General Hospital Mortuary and found the dead body of her father having injuries on his face. Her father was having illicit intimacy with one Woman by name Tirupathamma and that the accused also developed intimacy with the said woman. She further came to know that the accused due to some rivalry with her father about intimacy has killed him.
27.PW-9 during her cross-examination has stated that on 15.06.2019 she went to the police station along with her sister/PW-8, she did not go to police station on 14.06.2019. She admitted that before police she did not state that she had seen the accused and she stated before police that some unknown person has killed her father.
28.PW10/V. Thirupathamma, who is the witness and wife of accused deposed that the you were her second husband. While working at Kachiguda she came
Page No. 15 of 37
SC 281 of 2021
` across the accused developed intimacy and later got married to the accused. In the year 2019 she went to Jedcherla to attend marriage of her nephew. After marriage she went to Bhoothpur village to meet her sister, where she met the deceased/ Venkataiah. On seeing talking to Venkataiah the accused threatened her with dire consequences and beat her and also threatened that he will kill the deceased and herself. After that, on one day the accused send her to her village
Koduru to see her son. On one day the accused informed her over phone of the deceased asking her to come to Mumtaz Garden. Meanwhile, Police came and caught hold the Raju by saying that he has killed the deceased. MO-3 is the mobile phone used by the deceased through which accused has contacted her on the date of murder. According to her the accused himself stated her that he has killed the deceased with the help of some stick.
29.PW-10 during her cross-examination has stated that she used to consume toddy and she is also a vagabond and freely used to move with the men. She admitted that Kukatpally Police has registered a murder case against her and two others for killing her husband Venkaiah.
30.PW11/S. Anjaneyulu who is the witness who collected CCTV footage at toddy compound deposed that on 14.06.2019 as per the instructions of
Inspector of police Shamshabad he visited Toddy shop of Srinivas Goud situated at Shamshabad town. Then, he verified the footage of the day 13.06.2019.
During the course of examination of CC footage available in the toddy shop he had detected the footage of the deceased and accused consuming toddy on the said day during 7.00 to 7.30PM. After that, he had collected the footage of the deceased and accused in the Pen drive and converted into CD and gave it to the
Inspector.
Page No. 16 of 37
SC 281 of 2021
` 31.PW-11 during his cross-examination has stated that during examination by the police he did not state that he has shown his Identity Card to the owner of toddy shop.
32.PW12/M. Anjaiah, who is the circumstantial witness and recharged the deceased phone number deposed that he used to top up the SIMS upto Rs.20/- to Rs.100/- with the help of his mobile phone bearing No. 9010161407. He knew accused who used to get top up the SIM. The police came to his shop on 15.06.2019 and enquired about top up of the SIM card of the accused.
33.PW-12 during his cross-examination has stated that he generally identified the customers who visits his shop for repair or recharge of SIMS, and that he can identify the person if he see once.
34.PW13/M. Om Prakash who is the panch witness for the scene of offence cum inquest and seizure deposed that on 14.06.2019 as per the instructions of
Tahsildar Shamshabad they went to Firangi Canal of Thondupally village at 9.00AM. The police who were there has conducted scene ofoffence panchanama in respect of place of occurrence. Then, Police has seized one 90ml liquor bottle, six broken teeths, six beedies, empty water packet, key, and one pair of paragon
Slippers under cover of scene of offence panchanama and obtained his signatures. Ex.P3 is the scene of offence panchanama which bears my signature of LW-19 G. Bala Krishna, and that they also noticed male dead body aged about 45-50 years having injuries on face, chin, lips, mouth and cut injuries on penis and testicles. The police also conducted inquest over the dead body in their presence. The police also seized one Dhoti and one underwear in torn-ed condition. He can identify all the items that were seized by the police in his presence from the place of occurrence. MO-4 six broken teeths, MO5 five
Page No. 17 of 37
SC 281 of 2021
` beedies, MO6 empty water packet, MO7 One pair of paragon slippers, MO8
Dhoti, MO9 Key, MO-10 Torned underwear.
35.PW-13 during his cross-examination has stated that MRO has informed about the murder. He did not received any information from LW-3 Gopal, and stated that the inquest panchanama was conducted at Firangi Canal, and that the distance between the place of occurrence and Firangi nala is 100 meters. He denied the suggestion that, no panchanama was conducted at the place of occurrence and no property has been seized in his presence and that he had signed the panchanama in the police station.
36.PW14/Dr. K.V. Ramana Murthy who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased deposed that on 15.06.2019 he conducted autopsy over the dead body of Gajula Pedda Venkataiah, aged about 56 Years, at Osmania
Medical College. Accordingly he had commenced autopsy at 11.15AM and concluded by 12.30PM. During course of autopsy he found following anti morterm injuries.
1. An irregular crushed laceration with contused collar was present over right side of the face extending from left mid forehead area to outer right eye and cheek. Bone area obliquely measuring 12Cms X 2.5 Cms fracturing facial bones, Cheek Bones, Nasal bone and skull bault with anterolateral compression with crushing all skull bones and expelling the brain through a laceration of 7X3 Cms over back and right occipital area transverly. Eye ball was crushed. Brain lacerated all over.
2. Another laceration with imprint conclusion was present over left eye proper and cheek bone transversly with black eye and left side of the face, Fracturing orbital floor crushing eye ball of 10X6 Cms.
Page No. 18 of 37
SC 281 of 2021
`
3. Contusion of lips and chin with imprint collor was present in an area of 8X5 Cms with laceration of upper lip with under lying fractures of both jaws at multiple places.
4. Upper part of front of right chest was contused in an area of 15X9 Cms.
5. Laceration was present transfeselly over shaft pennies at its upper part of 3X 0.5 Cms.
6. A vertical laceration involving only skin of the scrotem of 3X0.5 Cms.
7. Contusion over lower border of front of scrotem with swelling of both testicles in and area of 10X6 Cms on cut section blood clots were present in scrotal sac. Both testicles ruptured.He is of the opinion that the death of the deceased caused due to crush injury on head.
The said injuries are cause by blunt heavy object with irregular surface.
Approximate death of the deceased is 36-48 hours prior to his PME examination.
37.PW-14 during his cross-examination has stated that if a person in drunken condition falls from considerable height the above injuries can be possible.
38.PW15/P. Krishnamachary who is the witness and apprehended the accused deposed that on 15.6.2019 on the instructions of Inspector of Police, he went to Labor Adda situated near Shamshabad Railway Kaman along with Photo of deceased Gajula Venkataiah to establish the identity of the dead body. While interacting with the labors at about 10:00 AM, PW8 who was there has seen the photos of the dead body and identified, the dead body of his father Gajula
Venkataiah. Then, he along with another constable took her to Mortuary of
OGH for the purpose of identification of the dead body. On seeing the dead body, PW8 has identified as her father. Then, after conducting PME over the corpse of the deceased was handed over to her for final rites. Ex P6 are the two photographs, which he took to Labour adda for identification of the dead body
Page No. 19 of 37
SC 281 of 2021
` of Gajula Venkataiah. Later, he was instructed to go to Koheda village of
Mahaboobnagar district for tracing out the call, which came from
Thirupathamma/PW10. Accordingly, On 18.6.2019 he went to Koheda village for tracing out call raider. He had traced out PW10 at Mumtaz garden of
Thondupally village. Then, himself, S.I and Thirupathi, Constable went to
Thondupally village and enquired PW2 about the phone call, for which she stated them that her husband Raju/Accused has purchased new mobile phone.
Then, PW10 called her husband Raju/Accused from Mumtaz Garden and their SI has questioned about the Mobile phone, who did not give proper answers, then they apprehended the you accused and produced before Inspector of Police for necessary action.
39. PW-15 during his cross-examination has stated that as per his enquiry, the deceased name is Gajula Venkataiah but not Gajula Pedda Venkataiah and he admitted that before police he has stated that he went to Labour adda on 14.06.2019, and that he denied the suggestion that he did not go to labour adda on 15.06.2019 and that he is deposing false.
40.PW16/K. Yadagiri who is the panch witness for confession and recovery panchanama of the accused deposed that on 18.6.2019 as per the instructions of their MRO himself and his MRO went to police station Shamshabad at about 11.20 am. Then, they met inspector of police and requested them to act as mediator. Then, they have noticed the accused in the custody and on enquiry with him he has confessed about the commission of offence and then led them and police to Mumtaz garden where the police has seized clothes and one cell phone belonging to the accused under cover of panchanama. MO3 is the cell phone seized from the room of Munthaz garden. MO11 is Grey color Jeans pant and MO12 is mixed color shirt, and that he know the contents of the
Page No. 20 of 37
SC 281 of 2021
` panchanama which bears his signature and signature of LW22/Rachamalla Babu.
From there the accused led them and police by the side of railway track passing through Thondupally village where the accused has shown one long stick and the same has been seized by the police under cover of panchanama and obtained their signatures. MO13 is the long stick seized by the police in their presence by the side of railway track and the accused of you also confessed that
MO3 mobile phone belongs to deceased/Venkataiah.
41. PW-16 during his cross-examination he denied that no panchanama was conducted in his presence on 18.06.2019 and that the accused never confessed
before him and no property was recovered either at Mumtaz Garden or by the
side of Railway Track and that they have signed the panchanamas in the police station.
42.PW17/Bandari Shekar, circumstantial witness and relative of accused deposed that on 15.6.2019 the accused called him over phone and enquired about PW10 and he had stated him that she is in marriage and also requested him to connect PW10 over phone for which he expressed inability due to his per- occupation. On 15.6.2019 he received phone call from the accused through new
SIM number who stated him that he has taken new SIM card. He remember only last four digits ie, “7131”. Then he came to know that the accused has killed
Venkataiah.
43. PW-17 during his cross-examination has stated that he does not remember the old mobile phone number of the accused, and that he has forgotten the old number of accused.
44.PW18/P. Jayalaxmi who is the Nodal Officer, and issued CDR and CAF details of deceased deposed that she is working as Alternate Nodal Officer,
Page No. 21 of 37
SC 281 of 2021
` Vodafone Idea limited. Her company has received requisition from Deputy commissioner of police, Shamshabad to provide CDR’s and customer application forms of mobile No. 7036177131 for the period 15.4.2019 to 15.6.2019.
Accordingly, after going through the records their company has furnished the required information. The number is registered in the name of Gajula Pedda
Venkataiah, S/o. Gajula Ballappa. They did not furnish Call Date Records of the said mobile because of lapse of more than 12 months as their company will be maintain the call data’s for 12 months only as per the Department of
Telecommunications.
45. PW-18 during her cross-examination has stated that along with application form one has to furnish Aadhaar card proof of any identity proof.
She further stated that she did not enclose of ID proof to Ex.P9.
46.PW19/Sri K. Ajesh Kumar who conducted Test Identification Parade of accused deposed that on 31.07.2019 he had received a requisition from SHO,
Shamshabad for conducting Test Identification Parade in Cr no. 252/2019, u/sec.
302, 201, 379 IPC in respect of suspect/Pallapu Raju @ S.Raju @ Timmaiah.
Accordingly, he had issued summons to the witness/Devulapalli Srinivas Goud,
Toddy sales man, R/o. Madhura nagar, Shamshabad and also addressed a letter to Superintendent of Central Prison, Cherlapally for making arrangements for conducting TIP to be held on 03.08.2019.
47.He further deposed that on 02.08.2019 after obtaining permission from the Hon’ble I Addl. District Judge-Cum-Metropolitan Sessions Judge, R.R.
District. He proceeded to Central Prison, Cherlapally on 03.08.2019 and he had commenced proceedings at 04:15 PM. Then he asked the Superintendent of Jail to make arrange the place for conducting Test Identification Parade.
Page No. 22 of 37
SC 281 of 2021
` Accordingly, the Superintendent has arranged the place at video linkage room which is not visible to anybody. Then, he had picked up the suspect with the help of Jail Superintendent and 5 non-suspects for the purpose of conducting the parade who are in the similar age group, height and complex of the suspect whose names have mentioned in his proceedings. Thereafter, he asked the suspect about satisfaction of the non-suspects for the purpose of parade who expressed satisfaction. Then, he asked all of them to stand in a row.
Accordingly, the suspect has picked up place in between suspect No.2 and 3.
After that, he asked his attender to get the witness Sri Devulapally Srinivas
Goud who was waiting in Room No. 17. After his arrival to the room then he asked him to identify the suspect/culprit from the row. After four minutes after going through the person standing in the row, the witness has rightly picked up the suspect from the row and identified as accused. He took all precautions
before and while conducting the Test Identification Parade. Thereafter, he
closed the proceedings.
48. PW-19 during his cross-examination has stated that he did not collect any proof of identity of the witness/Devulapally Srinivas Goud before proceeding for conducting Test Identification Parade. Only once he has conducted Test
Identification Parade in this case.
49.PW20/B. Santhosh Kumar who is the Nodal Officer issued CAF and CDRs of LW-12 and LW-23 deposed that his office has received requisition from DCP,
Shamshabad requesting for supply of call data records of mobile phone No.
9573780826 and 9849673872 for the period 14.06.2019 to 20.06.2020.
Accordingly, his office verified the call data records and furnished to the police as required, and that the 1st mobile number registered in the name of
Tirupatamma/PW10 and the 2nd number registered in the name of Bandari
Page No. 23 of 37
SC 281 of 2021
` Shekar/PW17. Ex.P12 are the call data record sheets consisting of 4 pages. Ex.P13 and P14 are the customer application forms. Ex.P15 is the 65-B Certificate issued by his office certifying the call data’s.
50.PW21/S. Suresh, who issued FIR and apprehended the accused deposed that on 14.06.2019 at 08:25 AM, he received Ex.P1/complaint through PC 130 with instructions of Inspector of police, Shamshabad. On the basis of same he registered a case in Cr no. 252/2019, for the offence u/sec. 302, 201 IPC and issued Ex.P16 FIR. As per the instructions of Inspector of police on 18.06.2019 he visited Thondupally Village along with PW-15 and LW-17/Tirupathi Reddy and
Woman PC 7728/Manjula Rathod and apprehended the accused from Mumtaz
Garden and brought to police station and produced before the Inspector for necessary action.
51. PW-21 during his cross-examination has admitted that he did not received
Ex.P1 complaint from PW1 directly, and that he did not participate in the investigation.
52.PW22/D. Srinivas Goud who is the circumstantial witness and worker of toddy compound deposed that he is running Toddy shop at Shamshabad for the last 20 years. His Business hours commences at 10:00 AM and closes by 10:00
PM everyday. There are 10 workers working in his toddy shop. Everyday nearly about 50 customers were came to his toddy shop for consumption of toddy. He can identify regular customers who visits his toddy shop. In the year 2019 on one day at about 03:00 PM the accused and the deceased/Venkataiah came to his toddy shop for consumption of toddy and both of them consumed toddy from his shop after paying the amount. After taking toddy, the accused and deceased had an altercation for which he intervened and admonished them and send them. His shop is under surveillance of CC cameras. The said camera will
Page No. 24 of 37
SC 281 of 2021
` be capturing the customers coming to his shop and about sales and other things. After two days the police came to him and enquired about the persons by showing the photograph. After going through the photographs he had identified the person as one of his customer as Venkataiah and then police also collected CC footage from his shop. Thereafter, he identified the accused during Test Identification Parade in the jail.
53. PW-22 during his cross-examination has stated that the accused and deceased used to come to his toddy shop regularly for having toddy.
54.PW23/R. Venkatesh, who is the first investigating officer and arrested the accused deposed that on 14.06.2019 at 08:15 AM on receipt of information from
VRA, Thondupally village about lying of male dead body in Phirangi nala of
Thondupally village, he went to said place and found male dead body aged about 50 years and also noticed Village Revenue Officer and Village Revenue
Assistant at that place. Then, VRO, Thondupally village gave complaint Ex.P1 to him and forwarded the same to the police station through PC 130 for registration of a case. Accordingly, PW21 has registered the case in Cr No.
252/2019, u/sec. 302, 201 IPC. Then, the said officer has sent the case file to
PW-23 to the spot. Then, he recorded the statement of PW1 and PW2 i.e. V.R.O and V.R.A. and PW3/one of the villager. Thereafter, he conducted Observation panchanama and scene of offence panchanama in the presence of two mediators i.e. PW13 and LW19/Gandusu BalaKrishna under crime detail form and seized 9 articles from the place of occurrence under Ex.P-3. Then, he lifted blood stains samples and earth controller from the place of occurrence and recorded detailed statement of PW4 and 5. Then, he conducted inquest panchanama over the dead body in the presence of PW13 and LW19/Gandusu
Bala Krishna under Ex.P4. Then he also got photographs of the entire scene
Page No. 25 of 37
SC 281 of 2021
` observation panchanama and inquest panchanama with the help of clues teams.
Ex.P6 is the photographs of the dead body. Thereafter he got shifted dead body to Osmania General hospital for the purpose of preservation as the identity of the deceased has not been established. Then, he got verified MO-1 liquor bottle from where it was purchased with the help of Veritappwhich revealed that it was purchased from Sadhana Wines, Shamshabad. Then, I have deputed PW6 and LW7/B.Anji Babu for the purpose of conducting enquiry as to the sale and accordingly, they have traced out PW7/Katikala Ravinder as owner of the shop.
Then, he have secured the presence of him and recorded his detailed statement.
He recorded the statement of PW6 and LW7. On the next day i.e. on 15.06.2019 he has deputed PW15 and LW17/N.Tirupathi Reddy, PC 3267 for the purpose of identification of male dead body along with photographs. Accordingly, they have visited different areas in Shamshabad town and meanwhile, PW8/elder daughter of the deceased who was there at Labour Adda has identified the photograph of male dead body as her father and they informed him over phone.
Immateriality, he rushed to the Labour Adda and secured the presence of PW8 and recorded her detailed statement and thereafter, the identity of male dead body has been established.
55.PW23 further deposed that thereafter, he has deputed ASI along with
PW8 to go to OGH mortuary for the purpose of identification of dead body and also for giving requisition to the medical officer for conducting autopsy. The doctor while conducting autopsy has collected blood stains containing on banian, towel and thread over the waist of the dead body. MO-14 is the banian.
MO-15 is the towel. MO-16 is the Waist thread. On the same day he has examined and recorded the statements of LW10/Thimmaiah Venkatesh and
PW9/Smt Bairagi Laxmi/second daughter of the deceased. He collected mobile
Page No. 26 of 37
SC 281 of 2021
` number of the deceased from PW8. He also addressed the letter to
PW18/Nodel officer for furnishing the call data recorded of the deceased mobile no. 7036177131 and also obtained report from them. On verification of the call data it came to light that the SIM card of the deceased has been recharged on 14.06.2019 and also came to know that after recharge some two contacts were made to two persons i.e. 9573780826 belonging to PW10 and 9849673872 belonging to PW17 and also on the next day through deceased mobile number. Basing on the same he has verified the address particulars of the persons who were came in contact with the help of 3 eye Investigation tool of Telangana state police in which the 9573780826 belongs to PW10/Vakiti
Thirupathamma. Then, he has traced out the address of PW10 with the help of
PW15 and LW17/N.Thirupathi Reddy. After that, he gave requisition to Nodel officer of the Airtel and Voda Phone. While investigation, is in progress on 18.06.2019 on receipt of credible information about PW10 with the help of his staff could able to locate the place of PW10 and produced before him along with her husband i.e., accused. On interrogation the accused has confessed about the commission of offence in the presence of two mediators PW16 and
LW22/Rachamalla Babu. Then, he recorded the statement of PW10. After recording confessional statement of the accused led us and mediators to his house situated at Mumtaz garden where he has recovered Micromax X591 mobile phone (basic model) (i.e. MO-3)with airtel 4G SIM card and one grey colour jeans pant, white, black and chocolate colour shirt(MO-11 and 12) and further the accused led us to scene of offence beside railway track which is passing from Shamshabad to Jedcherla of mud road, where he seized one stick containing blood stains (MO-13) under cover of panchanama in the presence of same mediators, from there the accused led us to Toddy shop of PW22 where he has recorded the statement of PW22 and also collected CC footage from the
Page No. 27 of 37
SC 281 of 2021
` toddy shop which having footage of the accused and deceased consuming toddy and coming out from the shop. From there the accused led to the shop of
PW12 to the recharge shop where the deceased mobile phone of SIM card has been recharged by the accused. he also recorded the statement of PW12.
Further he also deposed that he has examined PW17 who is relative of accused and recorded his detailed statement to establish the other SIM card used by the accused. Then, he brought the accused and seized property to the police station and after completion of formalities of arrest he forwarded him to the court for judicial custody. Further he have send the articles seized from the scene of offence and from the dead body at the time of autopsy, blood stained stick (MO-13) was sent to Forensic Lab for the purpose of analysis and report.
Further, he filed a requisition before the PW19/Magistrate for conducting the
TIP of the accused with the help of PW22, who has identified the accused. On the basis of confession he have added another section of law 379 IPC in addition to 302, 201 IPC and his entire investigation reveals that the accused has killed the deceased as he was having extra marital relationship with PW10/accused wife. On his transfer he have handed over the case file to my successor/
Y.Prakash Reddy, Inspector of police.
56. PW-23 during his cross-examination has stated that he has not seized any weapons as mentioned in Ex.P1/complaint but, he had seized MO-13/Blood stained stick. He admitted that PW9 stated to him that her father name is Gajula
Venkataiah. He did not collect Aadhar card of Gajula Venkataiah, and that Gajula
Venkataiaha and Gajula Pedda Venkataiah are one and the same person, and that he has not mentioned the said fact in his investigation. He denied the suggestion that the Gajula Venkataiah and Gajula Pedda Venkataiah are two different persons and his investigation is not proper on that aspect. He
Page No. 28 of 37
SC 281 of 2021
` admitted that, PW10 was involved in a murder case of her husband and that
PW10 stated that she is in habit of easy virtue. He denied the suggestion that
PW10 is the main person who has killed the deceased, and that without proper investigation the accused has implicated in this case.
57.PW24/Y. Prakash Reddy, Inspector of Police who filed charge sheet deposed that after assuming charge he took up the case for further investigation and verified the investigation carried out his predecessor. During course of investigation he has collected Certified copies of Call data records and customer application form from Voda phone office and Airtel office, also collected FSL report and case property and on completion of investigation he laid charge sheet. Ex.P17is the FSL report received by him and the said document is marked within the permissive limits of Section 293 (b) of Code of
Criminal Procedure.
58.PW-24 during his cross-examination has stated that he had gone through the entire case diary the movement he assumed charge. He denied the suggestion that he did not verified the case diary properly and only to help his predecessor he formally filed charge sheet.
59.Now the point for Consideration is:
“Whether the prosecution has proved proved the guilt of accused
for the offences punishable U/s. 302, 379 and 201 of IPC beyond all
reasonable doubt”?
60. POINT :
The nature of fact required to be proved is whether the accused committed the murder of the deceased/Venkataiah. The oral evidence adduced by the prosecution and the material evidence seized are to assist the court to arrive at a conclusion. As per the well settled principal of law it is the duty of the
Page No. 29 of 37
SC 281 of 2021
` prosecution to lead best evidence and adverse inference can be drawn when the best evidence is not produced before the court.
61.Now on examining the evidence produced by the prosecution we have to glance at the scenerio where the incident took place.
62.On 14.06.2019 at 0825 hours a complaint was lodged at PS Shamshabad by the VRO of Tondupally village stating that on the same day he received a phone message from VRA Sri Janaki Ram of Thondupally Village that one unknown male dead body was found at Finrangi canal with bleeding injuries on his face and it appeared that some unknown person might have committed the murder of the deceased, on the previous night i.e. 13.06.2019. On receiving the report SI of police registered the case under sec. 302, 201 IPC and took up the investigation. The above said facts were deposed by Sandamoni Nagesh/VRO who was examined as a PW1 and according to him the deceased was aged about 45 to 50 years and height 5.2 inches. The report given by him was marked as
Ex.P1 there are no discrepancies appearing in his evidence and his evidence was corroborated with the evidence of PW1 who first got the information from
P.Gopal i.e. PW3 thus the dead body was detected at the Firangi canal.
63.It is an admitted fact that the death of the deceased was homicide and the same has been proved through the evidence of the medical officer who examined the dead body of the deceased and conducted autopsy Ex.P5 PME report. According to him the death of the deceased was caused due to crush injury on head and it was caused by blunt heavy object with irregular surface and approximately death of the deceased i.e. 36 to 48 hours prior to his examination.
Surprisingly, he admits the suggestion that if a person in drunken condition falls from considerable height the above injury can be possible. But, the injuries ipso
Page No. 30 of 37
SC 281 of 2021
` factoprove that the deceased was brutally assaulted on his scrotum and his both testicles were ruptured and at the same time eye ball was crushed brain lacerated all over there were multiple fractures on both jaws resulting in fall of teeth. Thus any prudent man visualize that the injuries sustained by the deceased clearly indicate killing with vengeance. Therefore, it can be undoubted by held that the deceased was brutally murdered.
64.Now on examining of oral evidence PW15 that Head constable could establish the identify of the deceased while interacting labour and the daughter of the deceased PW8 identified the photographs of the deceased as her father and she was brought to the mortuary of the OGH and she identified the dead body. Similarly, PW15 was successful in tracing one Thirupatamma i.e. PW10 and also the accused/Raju who was called from Mumtaz garden and he was apprehend and produced before the police. Undoubtedly, there is no direct evidence to establish the commission of offence and therefore, this court is compelled to ascertain the circumstances which lead to prove the murder of the deceased.
65.To fill the chain of circumstances the evidence of the Investigating officer has to be considered and analyzed at the threshold according to him on receiving the information he reached the scene of offence and prepared the scene of offence panchanama and observation panchanama.
66.The seized material objects are six teeth of human being, MO-4 original choice of liquor bottled, MO-1 is the acqua water bottle, 5 beedies of MO-5, white color dothi MO-8, Inner wear MO-10, Pare of slippers MO-7, Hanko company key MO-9. On verifying their Verit App he could trace that liquor
Page No. 31 of 37
SC 281 of 2021
` bottle was purchased from Sadhana wines and thereby he could find out the owner of the shop. PW7 and according to him he sold MO.1 to customer at 10:00 AM for Rs. 55/-.
67.After collecting the mobile number of the deceased from PW8 he addressed to letter PW18 that the Nodel officer for furnishing the call data of 7036177131 the mobile phone of the deceased and it came to light that it was recharged on 14.06.2019 and two calls were made to PW10 (9573780826) and
PW17 (9849673872) and thus he traced PW10 Thirupatamma and she along with her husband Raju were produced before him. The above said facts have been corroborated with the evidence of the PW15 Nodal officer and PW15, the head constable with regard to the confession made by the accused which lead to the discovery of the material objects used for the commission of the offence. The prosecution examined PW16, the VRO of Thondupally village in whose presence the accused has confessed to have committed the offence and led them to
Mumtaz garden where the police seized clothes (MO11 and 12) and cell phone (MO3) under the cover of panchanama and Ex.P7 is the relevant portion of recovery panchanama which is admissible under Sec.27 of Indian Evidence Act.
The accused further lead them to the railway track where he has shown one long stick (MO13) and the same was seized by the police under cover of panchanama and EX.P8 in the relevant portion of panchanama and the accused further contended that MO3 the mobile phone belonged to the deceased nothing was elicited in his cross examination in favour of the accused. Thus the confession and discovery of fact of using the stick for the purpose of hitting and killing the deceased and the consequence discovery of the stick at the railway track in consequent on the statement of the accused further strengthen the circumstantial evidence on which the case rests.
Page No. 32 of 37
SC 281 of 2021
` 68.Another important witness is PW22 who is the toddy shop owner and according to him the accused and the deceased have visited his toddy shop at about 03:00 PM and consumed liquor and they had an altercation for which he intervened and admonished them and saend them and he further stated that he identified the accused during the test identification period which was substantiated by the evidence of PW19 Sri K.Ajesh Kumar, the then XII Addl.
Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad who conducted the test identification parade.
69.Then the last seen theory has to be applied in this case as the evidence of
PW22 categorically proves that both the accused and deceased had toddy in his shop and also had altercation. This version is fortified by the CD Ex.P2 containing the CC TV footage. Thus the last seen theory comes into play as both the accused and the deceased were seen together by PW22. Apart from the above circumstances another important link to complete the chain of circumstances is the evidence of PW10, Tirupatamma, the wife of the accused, who admitted that the accused was angry with her due to her intimacy with the deceased, accused call record detain clearly prove that the accused made phone calls to her from the mobile phone of the deceased and the same has been proved through the evidence of PW20 the Nodal officer of Bharathi Airtel
Limited. The call data of PW10 and 17 clearly reveals that they received phone calls from the accused on 14th June, 2019 at 08:22 PM, 07:45 PM and on 15th June at 07:45 AM, 07:51 PM, 07:52 PM, 08:12 PM and 08:28 PM. By that time the dead body of the deceased was discovered and the call data marked as Ex.P13 and P14. This conversation of the accused with PW10 and PW17 was done through the phone of the deceased and the accused failed to explain the circumstances under which he has to call PW10 and PW17. Apart from it the
Page No. 33 of 37
SC 281 of 2021
` evidence of PW10, Tirupatamma clearly reveals that the accused was not pleased with her intimacy with the deceased and threatened her with dire consequences and he informed that he would kill the deceased. She further stated that the accused informed her that he killed the deceased. Thus the evidence of PW10 and P17 complete the chain of circumstances with regard to the commission of offence.
70.Now basing on the circumstantial evidence the court can draw the interference on reasonable prudence depending on the preexisting facts which are proved the evidence of the daughter of the deceased and PW10 clearly goes to show that the deceased was having intimacy with PW10 which made the accused angry. He expressed his dis pressure before his wife and also warned the deceased but, when the deceased did not heed to his words he tried to eliminate him. There are two other important witness one is who sold MO4 to the accused and another personviz the toddy shop owner who saw both the accused and deceased consuming liquor in the his shop. Thus basing on the last see theory and the contention of the accused leading to the discovery of material evidence it can be said that the guilt of the accused in killing the deceased is proved beyond suspicious or conjunctures. thus the whole chain of events that happen connecting the point towards the guilt of the accused cogently and unerringly. The above facts presented by the prosecution has supported the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. The last seen theory which derives it s relevance from section 7 of Indian evidence act is called the “Doctrine of inductive Logic” in which it is stated that if any fact related to the occurrence cause or effect lead to the circumstances in which that thing occurred or it provided an opportunity for the occurrence of that thing then those facts will be relevant. In the last seen theory the person who was last
Page No. 34 of 37
SC 281 of 2021
` present with the victim would have a reasonable opportunity to commit the crime.
71.Moreover, there is no opportunity for the accused to take the defence that there was reasonable gap between the commission of offence and where they were seen together because the accused and the deceased were seen by
PW-22 the toddy shop owner on one day prior to the discovery of the dead body of the deceased and the CCTV footage also proves the same.
72.The evidence of the daughter of the deceased further corroborated with the circumstances and according to her the deceased was addict to vices and he had illicit intimacy with PW-10 and accordingly they further deposed that due to rivalry between the accused and the deceased the accused had killed their father. Thus, their evidence almost completes the chain of circumstances and strengthens the chain and proves the guilt of the accused person.
73.In view of the above circumstances, this court arrives at a conclusion that it was the accused who committed gruesome murder on vengeance against the deceased as the deceased had illicit intimacy with PW-10 who is none other than the wife of the accused. Thus the motive and intention of the accused has been established and proved by the prosecution. Thus, this court holds that the prosecution has successfully proved the guilt of the accused for committing the murder of the deceased/Venkataiah, stealing his mobile phone and screening the offence under sec. 379, 302 and 201 IPC.
In the result the accused is found guilty for the offence under Sec. 379, 302 and 201 IPC and he is convicted under sec. 235(1) Cr.P.C.
Partly typed to my dictation and partly dictated to Stenographer, after transcription and corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 18th day of April, 2022.
III ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE,
RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.
Page No. 35 of 37
SC 281 of 2021
` 74.The offence is a gruesome murder and this court cannot proceed in accordance with the punishment under Sec. 360 of Cr.P.C or the Probation of offenders Act. Hence, the accused is heard on the quantum of sentence.
Heard the accused on quantum of Sentence:
The accused stated that he has two girls and prays for lenient sentence.
75.Heard the accused on question of sentence. The accused has committed the murder of the deceased in a brutal manner by intoxicating him and even badly damaged his private parts. In such circumstances, he does not deserve any lenient sentence. Of course, I do not consider this case as a rarest of rare case.
Hence, I am not inclined to impose capital punishment on the accused.
76.In the result, the accused is sentenced to under go Rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years for the offence punishable under
Section 379 of Indian Penal Code, Further the accused is sentenced to under go simple imprisonment for a period of five years and pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) in default Simple Imprisonment for a period of two months for the offecne under Section 201 of Indian Penal Code and he is sentenced to Life Imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 of Indian
Penal Code and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.
The seized material objects ie., MO-1 is the 90ml empty plastic liquor bottle, MO-2 is the Key, MO-4 is the six broken teeths, MO-5 is the Five beedies,
MO-6 is the Empty water packet, MO-7 is the One pair of Paragon slippers, MO-8 is the Dhoti, MO-9 is the One Himco company Key, MO-10 is the torned underwear, MO-11 is the Grey Colour Jeans Pant, MO-12 is the Mixed Colour
Shirt, MO-13 is the Long stick,MO-14 is the Banyan, MO-15 is the Towel, MO-16 is
Page No. 36 of 37
SC 281 of 2021
` the Waist Thread shall be destroyed after the appeal period is over, if no appeal is preferred.
MO-3 is the Mobile Phone of the deceased shall handed over to the deceased daughter/PW-8 or PW-9.
III ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE,
RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF
PROSECUTION DEFENCE
PW-1 Sandamoni Nagesh, NIL PW-2 M. Janaki Ram, PW-3 P. Gopal, PW-4 K. Kiran Kumar, PW-5 M. Ashok, PW-6 N. Chandrashekar, PW-7 K. Ravinder, PW-8 K. Anjamma, PW-9 B. Laxmi, PW-10 Thirupathamma, PW-11 S. Anjaneyulu, PW-12 M. Anjaiah, PW-13 Om Prakash, PW-14 Dr. K.V. Ramana Murthy, PW-15 P. Krishnama Chary, PW-16 K. Yadagiri, PW-17 Bandari Shekar, PW-18 P. Jayalakshmi, PW-19 K. Ajesh Kumar, PW-20 B. Santhosh Kumar, PW-21 S. Suresh, PW-22 D. Srinivas, PW-23 R. Venkatesh, PW-24 Y. Prakash Reddy.
EXHIBITS MARKED FOR
PROSECUTION
Ex.P1 is the complaint, Ex.P2 is the Crime Details, Ex.P3 is the scene of offence panchanama, Ex.P4 is the inquest panchanama, Ex.P.5 is the post mortem examination report,
Page No. 37 of 37
SC 281 of 2021
` Ex.P6 are the two photographs, Ex.P7 is the relevant portion of recovery panchanama, Ex.P8 is the relevant portion of recovery panchanama, Ex.P9 is the attested Photostat copy of application form of Gajula Pedda Venkataiah, Ex.P10 is the requisition for conducting Test Identification Parade, Ex.P11 is the Test identification Proceedings, Ex.P12 is the Call data record sheets consisting of four pages, Ex.P13 and P14 are the customer application forms, Ex.P15 is the 65-B certificate issued by PW-20’s office certifying the call datas. Ex.P16 is the FIR Ex.P17 is the FSL report,
DEFENCE
NIL
MOs marked:- MO-1 is the 90ml empty plastic liquor bottle, MO-2 is the Key, MO-3 is the mobile Phone, MO-4 is the six broken teeths, MO-5 is the Five beedies, MO-6 is the Empty water packet, MO-7 is the One pair of Paragon slippers, MO-8 is the Dhoti, MO-9 is the One Himco company Key, MO-10 is the torned underwear, MO-11 is the Grey Colour Jeans Pant, MO-12 is the Mixed Colour Shirt, MO-13 is the Long stick, MO-14 is the Banyan, MO-15 is the Towel, MO-16 is the Waist Thread.
III ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE,
RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.
Page No. 1 of 34
SC 393 of 2021
`
IN THE COURT OF III-ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE,
RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B. NAGAR
Present: SMT K. SAILAJA, III-Addl.District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District.
Dated this the 19th day of May, 2022
SC No. 393 of 2021
1.Name of the :The State of Telangana through complainantPahadishareef, Police Station.
2.Name of the Accused :Accused:- Vikram Berah S/o. Niranjan Berah, aged about 21 Years, Occ: Glass Work Labour, R/o. Plot No. 4, Sy. No. 30, SS Glass Factory, Jalpally, Balapur, Ranga Reddy District. N/o. Baibalindraghat, Banja Nagar, Barampur, Odissa State.
3.Offence under :U/s. 302,307,324 and 354 of IPC. Section
4.Cr. No. and Name of :Cr. No. 529/2020 of Pahadishareef, Police Police Station Station
5.P.R.C. No.: 15 of 2021 6Case committed by:V-AddlMetropolitanMagistrate, Cyberabad at L.B. Nagar.
7.Plea of the accused: Pleaded not guilty
8.Finding of the Court:Found not guilty for the offence under Section 354 of IPC. However, found guilty for the offence under Sections 302, 307 and 324 of IPC.
9.Sentence or Order: In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 354 of IPC and he is acquitted under Section 235 (1) of Cr.P.C.
However, the accused is found guilty for the offence under Section 302, 307, 324 of IPC and he is convicted under Section 235 (2) of Cr.P.C. and he is sentenced to under go Imprisonment for Life for the offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred only) in default to undergo
Page No. 2 of 34
SC 393 of 2021
` simple imprisonment for a period of six months.
Further, the accused shall under go Rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years for the offence under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code and pay a fine of Rs.300/- (Rupees Three hundred only) in default Simple Imprisonment for a period of Three months.
Furtherthe accused is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence under Section 324 of IPC.
All the above sentences shall run concurrently.
The seized material objects ie., MO-1 is the iron rod, MO-2 is the Bed sheet, MO-3 is the Ash colour short, MO-4 is the Bed sheet, MO-5 is the Towel, MO-6 is the Pant, MO-7 is the Shirt shall be destroyed after the appeal period is over, if no appeal is preferred.
10.Name of the Counsel :Sri N. Raveender, Addl.Public Prosecutor for the prosecutionfor the State.
11.Name of the counsel :Sri B.Guruvaiah, Advocate for accused.
for Accused(Legal Aid Counsel)
This case coming on this day before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri B. Guruvaiah, Learned Counsel for the accused (Legal Aid Counsel) and Sri N. Raveendar, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State and upon perusal of the material papers on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-
J U D G M E N T
1.The above named accused person is prosecuted for the offence under Section 302, 307, 324 and 354 of IPC.
2.The present case arose out of the report given by one Swetha Rai on 04.10.2020 at about 5.00PM at Pahadi Shareef Police Station stating that she is student and they have migrated to Hyderabad about 20
Page No. 3 of 34
SC 393 of 2021
` Years back and from six years her father running SS glass trading company in Sy. No. 30 on the way of Green city of Jalpally and they are residing in the said house. It is further stated that one Vikram Berah
S/o. Niranjan Berah aged about 20 Years was residing along with them since five years and he was quarrelling with regard to payment of money since many months, and on 03.10.2020 at about 7.30PM while her father Narendar Rai after the competition of his work was sleeping in his room, the said Vikram Behra with the intention to killing her father came took an iron rod and hit him on his head and face forcibly and when her mother Reena Rai went and tried to prevent he assaulted her with iron rod on her head and both of them fell on the ground unconsciously in the pool of blood on hearing the cries of her mother and she went inside. The said Vikram Behra with an intention of killing her tried to give a blow with with the iron rod and when she caught hold of the iron rod he pressed her neck and she fell on the ground and pretended that she became unconscious. At that time her uncle
Indrasen Rai came to their house and on seeing them he tried to stop
Vikram Rai and the said Vikram Rai also hit her uncle with an iron rod on the shoulder and ran away. She further stated that the said Vikram Rai for the sake of money has tried to kill her parents and therefore, she requested the police to take action.
3.On receipt of the police complaint the Sub Inspector of Police registered a case in Cr. No. 529/2020 under Section 307, 354 of Indian
Penal Code and took up the investigation and during investigation he visited the scene of offence in the presence of mediators and drawn the
Page No. 4 of 34
SC 393 of 2021
` rough sketch and conducted the scene of offence panchanama. Later he sent a requisition for the dying declaration of the injured persons who were serious and later on 06.10.2020 at about 9.50 PM the Sub
Inspector of Police received a message that the said injured Narender
Rai died at Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad at 9.15PM and therefore he altered the Section of law from 307 and 354 of IPC to 302, 307, 324 and 354 of Indian Penal Code and during the investigation he examined the witnesses and after conducting the inquest and sending the body to post mortem examination the investigating officer on 08.10.2020 at about 3.00PM got apprehended the accused and on interrogation before the mediators the accused confessed the offence and led them to the recovery of weapon used for assaulting ie., iron rod from the bushes and also at his instance blood stain clothes were recovered from the PVNR Express bridge road and the said articles were sent for FSL for expert opinion and on receiving the autopsy report and the injury reports of PW2 and 3 the Sub Inspector of Police after collecting antecedents of the accused filed charge sheet under Section 302,307, 324 and 354 of IPC.
4.The cognizance was taken by the V-Addl Metropolitan Magistrate,
Cyberabad at L.B. Nagar for the offence under Sections 302, 307, 324, and 354 of IPC.
5.On appearance of the accused, copies of the documents were furnished to him under Section 208 Cr.P.C., and as the offence punishable under Sections 302, 307, 324, and 354 of IPC is exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, and this case was committed to the
Page No. 5 of 34
SC 393 of 2021
` Court of Sessions under Section 209 Cr.P.C., and the same was made over to this court for disposal, in accordance with law.
6.Under Section 226 of Cr.P.C the learned Addl.Public Prosecutor opened the case of the prosecution.
7. On appearance of the accused in this court, and after hearing both the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the prosecution and the learned counsel for the accused and upon considering the material on record, a charge under Sections 302, 307, 324, and 354 of IPC has been framed against him, read over and explained in his known language for which he denied the charge, pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.
8.Under Section 230 Cr.P.C schedule for prosecution evidence was issued.
9.In support of its case, under Section 231 of Cr.P.C the prosecution has examined as many as 15 witnesses out of whom PW-1 is the defacto complainant/Victim/daughter of deceased, PW-2 is the injured/eye witness/wife of the deceased, PW-3 injured/eye witness/brother of the deceased, PW-4 is the witness/brother of the deceased, PW-5 who is the circumstantial witness/relative of the deceased, PW-6 who is the panch witness for crime detail form, PW-7 who is the panch witness for inquest, PW-8 Panch witness for confessional cum seizure panchanama of accused, PW-9 who conducted autopsy and issued PME report, PW-10 who treated the injured LW-2 (Reena Rai) and issued opinion, PW-11 who treated the injured LW-3 (Indrashan Rai) and issued Medical certificate, PW-12 who issued First
Page No. 6 of 34
SC 393 of 2021
` information report and first investigating officer, PW-13 who recorded the statement of Victim, PW-14 who treated the injured LW-2 (Reena
Rai) and issued Medical certificate, PW-15 who is the second investigating officer, arrested the accused and filed charge sheet. Ex.P- 1 is the complaint, Ex.P-2 is the crime detail form, Ex.P-3 is the inquest panchanama, Ex.P-4 is the relevant portion of recovery panchanama,
Ex.P-5 is the relevant portion of recovery panchanama, Ex.P-6 is the
PME report, Ex.P-7 is the injury certificate issued by PW-11, Ex.P-8 is the
FIR, Ex.P-9 is the alteration memo, Ex.P-10 is the FSL report, MO-1 is the iron rod, MO-2 is the Bed sheet, MO-3 is the Ash colour short, MO-4 is the Bed sheet, MO-5 is the Towel, MO-6 is the Pant, MO-7 is the Shirt, 10.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., and he denied the incriminating evidence appearing against him and reported no defence evidence.
11.ARGUMENTS.
The learned state defence counsel vehemently argued that the prosecution has failed to prove the motive and intention of the accused in killing the deceased and assaulting his wife and daughter. He further contended that all the witnesses examined by the prosecution belongs to the same family and it is quite natural that they would support the version of PW1. He further argued that PW1 deposed that she had given her statement to the police on 03.10.2020 ie., before lodging the FIR and she has stated that the accused left the rod in their house while fleeing away whereas contrary to her version the alleged rod was seized from the scene of offence.
Page No. 7 of 34
SC 393 of 2021
` 12.The learned counsel also pointed out that no finger prints were obtained from the rod. It is further argued that the court did not permit the defence to call for the call data of the witness PW1 to PW3 so that there could be a chance of glancing to whom calls were made after the attack.
13.It is further submitted that only to remove the accused from the company the offences were alleged against him falsely and that he was innocent.
14.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed written arguments.
The prosecution case was narrated along with the evidence of witnesses and according to the prosecution there is no material contradictions or omissions or improvements found the evidence of Prosecution witnesses and there is a clear corroboration between them and even if any minor omissions are found it is not fatal to the prosecution case and he relied on the decision reported in
Bharwada Bhonginbhai Hirjibhai Vs. State of Gujrat in
1983 Crl. L.J. 1096. Wherein it was held that “Over much importance cannot be attached to minor discrepancies and omissions and contradictions, if any, they need not be considered with hyper technicalities.
The prosecution further relied on V.K. Mishra and another Vs.
State of Uttarakhand in 2015 (2) ALD (Crl.) 533 SC. Wherein it was held that “FIR – not expected to contain all details of prosecution case and it would be sufficient if broad facts of prosecution case.
Page No. 8 of 34
SC 393 of 2021
` The prosecution further relied on the decision reported in State of Kerala Vs. M.M. Mathew, AIR 1978 SC 1571. Wherein it was held that the courts of law have to judge the evidence before them by applying the well recognized test of basic human probabilities. The evidence of the investigating officers cannot be branded as highly interested on ground that they want that the accused be convicted.
Such a presumption runs counter to the well recognized principle that prima facie public servants must be presumed to act honestly and conscientiously and their evidence has to be assessed on its intrinsic worth and cannot be discarded merely on the ground that being public servants, they are interested in the success of their case.
He further relied on the decision reported in Yogesh Singh Vs.
Mahabeer Singh and others in 2017 (1) ALD (Crl.) 57 (SC).
Wherein it was held that “A survey of the judicial pronouncements of this Court on this point leads to the inescapable conclusion that the evidence of a closely related witnesses is required to be carefully scrutinised and appreciated before any conclusion is made to rest upon it, regarding the convict/accused in a given case. Thus, the evidence cannot be disbelieved merely on the ground that the witnesses are related to each other or to the deceased. In case the evidence has a ring of truth to it, is cogent, credible and trustworthy, it can, and certainly should, be relied upon”.
He further relied on the decision reported in State of
Utterpradesh Vs. Krishna Gopal and another in 1988 AIR 2154.
Wherein it was held that “Doubts may be actual and substantial doubts
Page No. 9 of 34
SC 393 of 2021
` as to the guilt of the accused-person arising from the evidence, or from the lack of it, as opposed to mere vague apprehensions. A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or a merely possible doubt; but a fair doubt based upon reason and common-sense. It must grow out of the evidence in the case. The concepts of probability, and the degrees of it, cannot obviously be expressed in terms of units to be mathematically enumerated as to how many of such units constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt. There is an unmistakable subjective-element in the evaluation of the degrees of probability and the quantum of proof.
Forensic probability must, in the last analysis, rest on a robust common- sense and, ultimately, on the trained intuitions of the judge. While the protection given by the criminal process to the accused-persons is not to be eroded, at the same time, uninformed legitimization of trivialities would make a mockery of administration of criminal justice”.
15.Hence, he prays the court to convict the accused person for the offence under Section 302, 307, 354 and 324 of IPC.
16.Before adverting to the discussion I would like to discuss the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses elaborately as hereunder :
17.PW.1/A.Swetha Rai has deposed that her father, the deceased/
Narendra Rai was owning Auto mobile company situated at Jalapally and about 4 to 5 workers were working under him and the accused was residing along with them. That on 01.10.2020 at 02:00 PM while she was at her house the accused went and proposed her and said that he fell in love with her for which she refused, and that she informed her
Page No. 10 of 34
SC 393 of 2021
` father and mother about the accused for which her father has admonished the accused by saying that he is like his son he is like a brother to her and he warned the accused, and that the accused kept the grudge against her father and asked him to give some money and her father did not give money to the accused as he had taken some advance amount for doing the work and asked the accused to wait for some time, and that on 02.10.2020 at about 07:30 PM the accused went to their house and quarreled with her father asking him to pay money and beat him with iron rod on his head and face and on hearing of attacking her mother went to bed room of their father and when she heard the cries of her mother she too rushed to the bed room of her father where she saw the accused beating her father and mother with iron rod and on seeing her he caught hold her neck and pushed her on the ground, and that one Indrasen Rai (LW3) her uncle entered their premised by making horn sound of bike and she made the accused believe and that she was unconscious just to escape from him and then he tried to attack Indrasen Rai who entered the room and on seeing him the accused attacked with iron rod causing injuries and her uncle beat the accused with hands and then the accused escaped from that place, and that her mother sustained head injury, her uncle sustained injury on left and right shoulder and on hearing their cries neighbors and relatives came and shifted them to Osmania General hospital for treatment and while undergoing treatment her father succumbed to injuries on 06.10.2020 and later her mother was discharged from the hospital on 06.10.2020 and her uncle was treated for one day, and that
Page No. 11 of 34
SC 393 of 2021
` she went to Police Station Pahadishareef on 04.10.2020 and gave a written report under Ex.P1 and she identified the iron rod used by the accused in the commission of offence.
18.PW1 during her cross examination denied her knowledge about the sales made to the customers and collection of money from the customers. According to her her father was not having any enemity with the customers. she further deposed that she did not informed the proposal made by the accused to her relatives except her parents. She further has stated that her father has tried to remove the accused from the company but the accused did not leave the company. She further has stated that she did not give any police complaint against the accused making proposal of love with her. The witness was recalled on 29.10.2021 and was further cross examined and according to her she along with her uncle tried to contact 100 Ambulance and 100 police but it was too late as they said they were coming but did not come. She further has stated that her father was completely unconscious while shifting to hospital and the police questioned her and her uncle. She further deposed that the accused left the rod in their house while fleeing away. She further has stated that on dictation the women SI Pahadi
Shareef wrote the complaint and she obtained the copy of the complaint. She denied the suggestion that somebody attacked her father and mother and they have filed a false complaint against the accused only to remove him from the company.
19.PW2/Smt Reena Rai (the mother of PW1) in her evidence deposed that about 5 years back her husband engaged the accused as a worker
Page No. 12 of 34
SC 393 of 2021
` in the company and he used to stay as a family member in their house and on 02.10.2020 he asked some advance money to her husband and her husband told him that he has advanced amount before engaging the accused as a worker and asked him to adjust the advance amount, and that on 02.10.2020 the accused has attended the work in the company at about 07:00 PM and returned home after completion of work and at 07:30 PM while she was preparing food in the kitchen he heard cries of her husband from the bed room and immediately she rushed to her husband and found the accused attacking her husband with iron rod and she prevented the accused from further attacking her husband and then the accused attacked on her head causing bleeding injuries and then her daughter came from another room and the accused pressed the neck of her daughter and she fell down on the ground and meanwhile, Indrasen Rai on hearing the cries entered the room and seening him the accused attacked with iron rod causing injuries on both shoulders and then she fell on the ground and the accused fled away from the place. She further identified the iron rod used by the accused in commission of the offence, and that all of them were taken to Osmania General hospital for treatment and she regained her conscious after two days and her husband died on 06.10.2020 while undergoing treatment and she was discharged from the hospital on the same day, and that her husband was wearing Ash color shirt (MO.3) and the police seized one Bed sheet (MO.2) and Ash color shirt (MO3).
20.During her cross examination she has stated that her husband has admonished the accused for making proposal to marry PW1 and she
Page No. 13 of 34
SC 393 of 2021
` denied the suggestion that some one hit her husband due to enemity and in order to remove the accused from the factory they got foisted false case against him.
21.PW3/Indrasen Rai (elder brother of deceased) deposed that he knew the accused who was worker in the company run by the deceased for the last four or five years and himself, PW1, PW2 and the accused used to reside in the house of deceased. On 03.10.2020 at about 7.30
PM after collecting amounts from the customers he returned to home and found the main gate was kept open and the accused was attacking
PW1, PW2 and deceased/Narender Rai with the help of an Iron rod and on seeing the same he rushed to the place and tried to prevent the accused from attacking his brother, PW1, PW2 but, the accused attacked him with the same iron rod on his two shoulders and hit with the iron rod on the face and head of his elder brother/Narender Rai and attacked PW2 with iron rod on her head causing bleeding injuries and the accused has pressed the neck of PW1 and after attacking the accused ran away from the place and then, he got shifted PW-2, his elder brother Narender Rai to Osmania General Hospital in an auto for treatment and he also took treatment for receiving injuries on his shoulder.
22.During his cross examination he has stated that he does not know what has happened before he entered the house and he denied the suggestion that some unknown persons attacked PW1 and PW2 and the deceased and that they have foisted a false case against the accused who asked for money. He further has stated that the neighbours came
Page No. 14 of 34
SC 393 of 2021
` after the incident on hearing the cries. He further has stated that during the attack with the iron rod by the accused he fell down as he was having helmet on his head he escaped from injuries.
23.PW4/Dheerender Rai has deposed that about 26 years back his elder brother and PW-3 migrated to Hyderabad for the purpose of doing some business and his brother Narender Rai has established SSG Glass
Trading Company at Jalpally of Balapur Mandal and he used to come to
Hyderabad from his Village now and then, he knew the accused who worked in the company of his brother and used to stay in the house of his brother and on 03.10.2020 at about 7.50PM PW-3 informed over phone that the accused attacked PW-2, PW-3 and deceased with iron rod causing bleeding injuries and was hospitalized and asked him to come down to Hyderabad. On the next day morning himself and LW-5
Shubham Rai came to Hyderabad by flight and went to Osmania
General Hospital and found his brother Narender Rai and PW2 with injuries and are undergoing treatment and his elder brother was seriously injured and was in critical condition and on 06.10.2020 his brother succumbed to injuries.
24.During his cross examination he denied the suggestion that he was deposing at the instance of PW1 and PW2 and a false case has been foisted against the accused from removing the accused from the factory.
25.PW5/Manoj Rai deposed that the deceased used to run Glass
Manufacturing factory at Jalpally Village who came to Hyderabad about
Page No. 15 of 34
SC 393 of 2021
` 20 Years back and he know the accused who used to work under deceased factory and also used to stay in the house of the deceased and the accused taken advance amount from the deceased to work in his factory and on 03.10.2020 at about 8.00PM PW1 informed over phone that the accused attacked PW2, PW3 and deceased with iron rod causing bleeding injuries and on the next day morning he went to OGH
Hospital and found the deceased having injuries on his face and head and similarly PW2 also having bleeding injuries on her head and PW3 also sustained injuries on his shoulder and on 06.10.2020 the deceased succumbed to injuries.
26.During his cross examination he denied the suggestion that he did not received any phone call from Pw1 and that the accused did not attacked PW2 and 3 and the deceased with iron rod and the witness was recalled on 17.11.2021 and he deposed that he could not go to the house of PW1 immediately as he was residing with his family having small children and he advised PW1 to call for ambulance. Further deposed that the deceased has no enemity with any person.
27.PW6/Md.Sirajuddin, has deposed that one Raheem who is his cousin brother has informed him over phone that a murder has taken place at Jalpally and asked him to go and see and accordingly, on 04.10.2020 at about 11.00 AM he went to the Jalpally to the house of
Narender Rai who is running Glass Manufacturing factory. By then, LW-8
Moiz Ahmed Khan was there and Police who were there has examined the place of occurrence and prepared rough sketch and panchanama
Page No. 16 of 34
SC 393 of 2021
` and he has seen blood stains on the bed sheet and one towel and Police has seized bed Sheet and Towel in their presence and obtained the signatures on the panchanama and he knew the contents of panchanama Ex.P2 is the crime detail form of panchanama and rough sketch which bears his signature and signature of LW-8 Moiz Ahmed
Khan and MO4 is the Bed sheet and MO5 is the Towel. After that they went away.
28. During his cross examination he denied the suggestion that no panchanama was conducted in his presence at any point of time and no property was seized from the house of the deceased Narender Rai. The witness was recalled on 29.10.2021 and he has stated that once he visited the police station in connection with the land dispute of Muneer
Saheb and he does not know about the visiting of his cousin LW-8
Ahmed Khan to the police Station.
29.PW7/Md.Subhan, has deposed that he went to OGH on 03.10.2020 and found Narender Rai with injuries on his face and head and was undergoing treatment and on 07.10.2020 he came to know that
Narender Rai succumbed to injuries and again he went to OGH and found the dead body where the police has conducted inquest panchanama over the dead body in their presence and obtained their signatures on it and then they opined that the deceased died because of injuries on head and face and Ex.P3 is the inquest panchanama which bares his signature and the signature of LW11 Raj Kapoor Rai.
Page No. 17 of 34
SC 393 of 2021
` 30. During his cross examination he has stated that he is running a glass work shop at Pedda Ameberpet and he was the customer of the deceased Narender Rai. He denied the suggestion that he did not go to
OGH Mortuary and no panchanama was conducted by the police in their presence and that the police obtained their signatures in the police station.
31.PW8/G.Siddulu has deposed that on 8.10.2020 on the instructions of their Thasildar, he along with LW12/Veera Swamy went to
Phadishareef PS at about 04:00 PM and then, they met the Inspector of
Police, where they found the accused in custody and then, Inspector requested them to enquire the accused about his custody and on enquiry, the accused confessed about committing murder of their owner by name Narender Rai with the help of Iron rod and further confessed that, the accused tried to kill wife of Narender Rai, daughter and brother with Iron rod but they escaped with injuries and then, in pursuance to confession, the accused lead them and police to Jalpally village near bushes, where the accused shown Iron rod used in commission of offence and then on verifying they found Iron rod and the police seized the Iron rod by preparing panchanama and he can identify the Iron rod seized from the bushes of Jalpally village. MO1 is the Iron rod, which was seized by the police. Ex P4 is the relevant portion of recovery panchanama and from there the accused took them and police to Rajendranagar near underpass bridge, where they were shown one blue pant and shirt and the same was seized under cover of panchanama and he identifed the pant and shirt. MO6 is the pant and
Page No. 18 of 34
SC 393 of 2021
` MO7 is the shirt. Ex P5 is the relevant portion of recovery panchanama.
Then, they came to Police station. Ex P4 and P5 are the recovery panchanamas prepared at Jalpally village and underpass bridge,
Rajendranagar bears his signature and signature of LW12/Kotla Veera
Swamy and he know the contents of Panchanama.
32. During his cross examination he has stated that he was not given any written instruction by his Tahsildar to go to Police Station along with
LW-12 and he admitted that he occasionally used to go to the police station on the instructions of the Tahsildar in connection with the police cases for conducting panchanamas. He further admitted that the place from where the iron rod is seized is situated on the way to Jalpally
Village to Gaganpahad which is a thorough fare and the free movement of the people from where MO1 was recovered at the same time he has stated that the underpass bridge at Rajendernagar is very busy with traffic. Lastly denied the suggestion that he did not go to the police station and nothing was seized in his presence and they are signed the panchanamas at the police station.
33.PW9/Dr. K.V. Ramana murthy, Professor in Forensic Medicine department has deposed that on 07.10.2020 he received requisition from SHO Pahadi Shareef for conducting autopsy over the dead body of
Narender Rai. Accordingly he commenced autopsy at 12.45PM and concluded by 01.45PM. During course of autopsy he found following antimorterm injuries.
Page No. 19 of 34
SC 393 of 2021
`
1. A sutured laceration of 8 Cms over right side of face obliquely extending from outer right upper lip area to right mid forehead area with contused collar on both margins with width of 4 Cms, margins were irregular, fracturing orbital bone and frontal on right side which is depressed measuring 10 Cms. On scalp reflection diffused contusion of scalp of 30X 22 Cms was present over both franto temporo parital areas, red in colour, subdural and subarachnoid hemmorage were present all over brain.
2. contusion of 5 X 3 cms were present over right lower cheek and chin area with underline fracture of Cheek bone and lower jaw in its middle brownish red in colour.
3. contusion of 10X8 Cms was present over back of right abdomen in its middle upto inner posterial wall. The death is due to head injury. Ex.P6 is the PME report issued by him which bears his signature. The above injuries are possible with MO1 Iron rod.
34. During his cross examination he has admitted that he did not mention the age of the injuries except the colour of injuries. According to him the injuries are possible with any heavy blunt object with semi sharp edges.
35.PW10/Dr.Srinivas Prasad, deposed that on 03.10.2020 at 12:00 AM (midnight) he examined PW2 and found following injuries:
(1) A laceration of 5x2 cm on forehead.
(2) A laceration of 7x2 left parietal region of head.
(3) Bleeding from nose and mouth.
Page No. 20 of 34
SC 393 of 2021
` The patient was treated as Inpatient for 4 days. The patient came to Casualty alleged to have been hit by known person with iron rod on 03.10.2020 at 08:30 PM at Green city and on 07.10.2020 the patient has been discharged from the hospital and the said injuries are simple in nature and can be possible with MO.1-iron rod and he did not issued the certificate but has been issued by Dr. Swapna who was Casualty
Medical Officer on that day.
36. During his cross examination he has stated that he was not present at the time of admission of PW2 and the casualty medical officer knows whether a requisition has been given by the police for the treatment of PW-2 and he has not given any opinion about the injuries and it was in casualty medical officer Dr. Swapna who has given the opinion. Lastly he denied the suggestion that he did not examined PW-2.
37.PW11/Dr. M.Chandrashekar, Civil Assistant surgeon deposed that on 04.10.2020 at 06:45 PM he examined the patient by name Inrdrasen
Rai/PW3 and found following injuries:
(1) Swelling in left thigh.
(2) Redness patchy area in left shoulder.
(3) Grace abrasion on right elbow.
According to him the patient told that he was beaten on 03.10.2020 at 07:30 PM and the said injuries are simple in nature and might have been caused with MO.1. Ex.P7 is the Injury certificate issued by him which bears his signature.
Page No. 21 of 34
SC 393 of 2021
` 38. During his cross examination has stated that he did not received any requisition from the police for treating PW1 as PW4 came on his own to the hospital for treatment. He further admitted that he did not mentioned the age of injuries and he denied the suggestion that he has not treated PW4 and has issued certificate at the instance of police.
39.PW12/Mohd Abdul Hayyum, Investigating officer has deposed that
On 04.10.2020 at 05:00 PM PW1 came to the police station and gave
Ex.P1/report and basing on the same he registered a case in Cr no.
529/2020, for the offense u./sec. 307, 354 IPC and issued FIR and Ex.P8 is the FIR and the and same is forwarded to the court and to all concerned and since, PW1 happen to be victim of outraging of modesty as such he instructed woman Sub Inspector of police for recording the statement in turn he has recorded the statement in his presence. Then,
PW1 led them to the place of occurrence which is glass industry situated in plot No. 4, Jalpally village, near Green city and examined the scene in the presence of two mediators PW6 and LW8/Moiz Ahmed Khan and prepared scene of offence panchanama and rough sketch under crime detail form Ex.P2 is the same form and at the scene of offence he seized one bed sheet and blood stained towel. MO-2 and MO-5 are the said objects seized by him under cover of panchanama and on 06.10.2020 he received telephonic message about 2350 hours about the death of the deceases/Narender Rai and then on the basis of death intimation he altered the section of law 302, 307, 324, 354 IPC by issuing alteration memo. Ex.P9 is the alteration memo. Since, the
Page No. 22 of 34
SC 393 of 2021
` matter being in grave in nature as such he handed over the case file to
Inspector of police for further investigation 40. During his cross examination he has stated that he did not received any kind of information till PW1 gave the complaint he further admitted that the reason for delay will be entered in the General Diary in case the reasons are given by the informant and he got recorded the statement of PW1 through Woman SI of police and there are no installations of CC Cameras in and around the place of occurrence, and that he has not filed any finger prints from the place of occurrence, he admitted that in Ex.P1 complaint there is no whisper about the love affair proposed by the accused to PW1 and PW1 did not disclose the amount demanded by the accused. Lastly denied the suggestion that some unknown person caused death of the deceased and attacked the injured and the accused was falsely implicated in the case.
41.PW13/Smt CH. Devaki, Investigating officer, has deposed that on 04.10.2020 at about 05:30 PM on the instructions of Station House officer she recorded the statement of PW1/Kum Swetha Rai and handed over to Sub Inspector of police/PW12.
42. During her cross examination she has stated that PW1 alone came to her and she has recorded her statement only once and between 5.00 to 5.30PM. Lastly she denied the suggestion that PW1 gave complaint against the accused due to rivalry and the accused has not committed any offence and that she is deposing false to help her higher officials.
Page No. 23 of 34
SC 393 of 2021
` 43.PW14/Dr.P.Swapna, has deposed that on 03.10.2020 at about 11:30 PM she examined one patient by name Reena Rai/PW2 and found following injuries:
(1) A laceration of 5x2 cms on forehead.
(2) A laceration of 7x2 cms over left parietal region of head.
(3) bleeding from nose and mouth
Then, she referred the patient for neuro-surgeon for head injury and the patient was under treatment of Dr.Srinivas Prasad/PW10 who issued the certificate and the patient also told that the injuries are caused by some known person with iron rod on 03.10.2020 at 08:30 PM.
Ex.P7 is the Medical certificate of PW2 which bears her signature.
According to her the injuries noted by her might have been caused by iron rod.
44. During her cross examination she has stated that she has treated
PW1 initially and the patient was conscious at the time of her examination and she told about the history of the injuries and she mentioned the age of the injury as fresh. She denied the suggestion that PW2 was unconscious when she was brought to the hospital and that she has not treated the patient and at the instance of the police she has issued the medical certificate Ex.P7.
45.PW15/S.Vishnuvardhan Reddy, Inspector of police CCS, Malkajgiri has deposed that on 07.10.2020 he took up investigation in this case from PW12 and verified the investigation done by him which is on proper lines and on the same day he visited Osmania General hospital and secured the presence of PWs 1 to 4 and LW5/Shubham Rai
Page No. 24 of 34
SC 393 of 2021
` examined them and recorded their detailed statements and PWs 1 to 3 are undergoing treatment at the time of examination and after that, he visited the mortuary and secured the dead body and conducted inquest over the dead body in the presence of PW7 and LW11/Rajkapoor Rai and prepared Ex.P3 report and thereafter he gave requisition to medical officer for conducting autopsy and thereafter he handed over the dead body to the relatives of the deceased for conducting final rites and on 08.10.2020 at 06:30 PM he examined PW5 and LW6/Sri Bipin Rai and recorded the detailed statements and on the same day he received credible information about the accused on which he along with his staff proceeded to Jalpally, Sriram colony bus stop and apprehended the accused and brought the accused to the police station and later, interrogated the accused in the presence of PW8 and LW13/Sri Kotla
Veera Swamy and you confessed about the commission of offence and then led them and mediators to the way leading to Gaganpahad from
Jalpally near the bushes where he recovered MO.1 in the presence of mediators under cover of panchanama/Ex.P4 and then, he further led them to PVNR express fly over starting point where he hidden his clothes near pillar and then, he seized the same under cover of panchanama in the presence of same mediators under Ex.P5. Then, he brought the accused and seized property to the police station and after completion of formalities of arrest he forwarded the accused to the court for judicial remand. A dark blue and White color checks design towel (MO.5), pink colour cotton bed sheet (MO.2), torn ash color shirt (MO.3), cream color cotton full sleeve shirt with black color floral design
Page No. 25 of 34
SC 393 of 2021
` (MO.7), blue color jeans pant (MO.6) and iron rod (MO.1) containing blood stains to FSL, Hyderabad for examination and report through
Assistant Commissioner of police, Vanasthalipuram on 12.10.2020.
After collecting the FSL report, PME report and MLC report and on competition of investigation he laid charge sheet by depositing the case property. Ex.P10 is the FSL report. The Assistant Director who conducted examination sought dispense of personal appearance for giving evidence u/sec. 293(b) Cr.P.C.
46.During his cross examination he has stated that he has not examine the person who were doing business with the deceased and he had examine the neighbouring witnesses of the scene of offence and the deceased brother is also one of the worker whom he has examined.
He further has stated that he has not received any information from Dial 100 or 108 and there was no CC Cameras near the place of occurrence.
According to him he has collected the call data of the deceased mobile phone. He further has stated that PW1 did not state before him that the accused developed love affair with her and the same was proposed by him. He further has stated that PW1 to PW3 did not state to him that some money dispute was going on between the deceased and accused and keeping the grudge the accused tried to kill the deceased. He further admitted that he did not collected the finger prints from MO1 or the finger prints of the accused. According to him MO1 is rough in nature and therefore, he could not traced out any prints. Lastly denied the suggestion that the accused did not attach and kill the deceased and he was falsely implicated in this case.
Page No. 26 of 34
SC 393 of 2021
`
47.The Point for determination is :
“Whether the accused committed the murder of Narendra Rai by hitting him with iron rod and attempted to kill his wife and daughter and tried to outrage the modesty of deceased wife and assaulted her”?
48.In substantiating the charges levelled against the accused the prosecution relied on the evidence of three witnesses viz., PW1 to PW3.
All the three witnesses were the kith and kin of the deceased. According to them the incident took place on 03.10.2020 at 7.30PM and according to PW2/Reena Rai she heard the cries of her husband/deceased and when she went to the room of the deceased the accused was hitting her husband with an iron rod on his face and head and when she went to prevent him the accused attacked her and hit her on the head and at that time when PW1 came inside the room he tried to attack her and when she caught hold of the rod he pressed her neck and she fell on the ground and pretended unconsciousness. At that time PW3 Indrasen Rai entered the home and the accused in order to escape hit him on his shoulders and ran away.
49.Thus, the evidence of PW1 to PW3 is the direct evidence to the offence committed by the accused. PW1 also narrated that the accused proposed her to marry him and on that he was admonished by her father and he used to demand money from her father and quarrel with him. Thus, the motive and intention of the accused was to extract money from the deceased and in that context he tried to kill him and his family members. The evidence of PW1 to PW3 has been corroborated with the evidence of PW4 and PW5 who soon after the incident have received the information and reached to Osmania General Hospital on
Page No. 27 of 34
SC 393 of 2021
` the next day and found the deceased in a critical stage and PW2 under going treatment. At this juncture, it is necessary to answer the point raised by the defence that all the witnesses were family members and their evidence cannot be believed. If one visualizes the time and place of the incident ie., at 7.30PM the incident took place in the home of the deceased. It is quite normal that one can expect the inmates of the house to be present at that time and we cannot expect the presence of independent witnesses or outsiders. Moreover, even if at all the witnesses are family members, they would not leave the real culprit who attacked them and rope any other person in the crime. Therefore, the contention of the defence that all the witnesses are family members and their evidence cannot be believed is refuted. Thus, the evidence of the PW1 to PW3 is cogent and devoid of any major contradictions and believable.
50.Coming to the medial evidence adduced by the prosecution it has been categorically deposed by the Professor of Department of Forensic
Science and Medicine PW-9 that the autopsy Ex.P6 conducted on the deceased revealed that the deceased sustained severe injuries on his face and head and the death was due to head injury and the injury was possible by MO1, the Iron rod. Similarly the evidence of PW-10 Assistant
Professor Osmania General Hospital reveals that PW2 sustained laceration on her forehead and parietal region of the head and bleeding from nose and mouth and PW11, the Civil Assistant Surgeon who examined PW3 and found swelling on the left thigh and redness on the left shoulder and grace abrasion on the right elbow vide Ex.P7.
Page No. 28 of 34
SC 393 of 2021
` 51.Thus, the above said medical evidence clearly reveals that PW2 and 3 and the deceased were attacked with an iron rod and grievous injuries were caused on vital parts. The above said injuries indicate that the accused had prepared to assault the inmates along with the deceased. The inquest report vide Ex.P3 though not substantive piece of evidence corroborates the version of PW1 to PW3, that the deceased died due to head injury. Apart from the above evidence the prosecution relied on the disclosure statement of the accused pursuant to which the material object (weapon) used in the committing the offence was recovered along with the apparel of the accused marked as MO-1 blood stained iron rod, MO6 Pant, MO7 Shirt. Recovery of the above material objects at the instance of the accused is a relevant fact duly proved through the evidence of PW-8 G. Siddu a witness to the confession and recovery and PW12 the investigating officer under Ex.P4 and Ex.P5 (relevant portion of the confession leading to discovery of material objects U/s. 27 of the Indian Evidence Act). Thus, the prosecution has successfully proved the recovery of articles at the behest of the accused which is a strong incriminating circumstance implicating the accused with regard to the weapon of offence. According to the prosecution the injuries were caused by a heavy weapon and even the medical officer who were confronted with the iron rod did not rule out the possibility of the injuries caused by the iron rod. Therefore, the court can arrive at a safe conclusion that the injuries of the deceased and witnesses PW2 and 3 have caused by the iron rod MO1.
Page No. 29 of 34
SC 393 of 2021
` 52.Now, while appreciating the evidence adduced by the prosecution it can be inferred that the main criterion that the probabilities of the presence of the witness at the time of occurrence is proved. The evidence deposed by PW1 to PW3 who are direct witnesses to the occurrence is cogent and consistent. No doubt the PW1 has not stated about the proposal made by accused in the FIR and it does not have much impact on the case of the prosecution as FIR is only meant to put the law into force on receiving any information of any crime and it need not contain all the details. Mover over, concealing certain facts which would harm the honour of an young woman is quite natural. It is further admitted by PW1 that she did not disclose the proposal of the accused to any relatives except her parents.
53.Therefore, non mention of the proposal of the accused by PW1 is not abnormal. Further more, the conduct of the accused after the attack has to be observed. The accused was absconding since the date of attack and he was apprehended only on 08.10.2020. The accused was working in the company of the deceased and was residing in the house of the deceased. There is no plausible explanation rendered by him as to why he was absent for four days after the attack on the deceased.
Thus, this behaviour of the accused further fortifies the case of the prosecution that after attacking the deceased and others with an iron rod the accused fled away from the house. Had some unknown persons attacked the deceased the accused could have assisted the family members of the deceased. Therefore, false implication of the accused in the alleged offence is ruled out.
Page No. 30 of 34
SC 393 of 2021
` 54.Now coming to the offence alleged U/s. 302 of Indian Penal Code against the accused. The prosecution has to establish bodily injury, nature of injury and that there was an intention to inflict that particularly bodily injury and the said injury is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Thus, in this case the accused was having the intention of causing bodily injury to the deceased and the injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature of cause of death.
55.Thus, in the instant case carrying an iron rod to inflict the injuries reveals the intention of the accused that he was determined to attack the deceased and at the same he has knowledge that if he gives a blow with iron rod on the head and face of the deceased it is sufficient to cause death of the victim and thus the act of the deceased was premeditated. Hence, according to the rule laid down Virsa Singh case even if the intention of accused was limited to the infliction of a bodily injury sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, and did not extend to the intention of causing death, the offence would be murder illustration (C) appended to Section 300 clearly brings out this point.
56.But, in the instant case the act of bringing the rod and hitting with it on the head of the deceased for want of money which resulted in his death, comes under the ambit of Section 300 (thirdly) and the offence alleged against him does not attract any exception of Section 300 as there is no grave sudden provocation caused to the accused.
Page No. 31 of 34
SC 393 of 2021
` 57.Thus, the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for causing the death of the deceased by hitting him with a rod on his head and face and there by committed the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code.
58.Similarly the prosecution has also proved that the accused attempted to cause death of the deceased, PW1 and PW2 by attacking them with a rod and caused injury to them and thereby committed the offence U/s. 307 of Indian Penal Code.
59.The accused further is found guilty for committing the offence U/s.
324 of Indian Penal Code for having caused injuries on PW2 and PW3 means of an iron rod.
60.However, there is no iota of evidence to prove that the accused outraged the modesty of PW2 and no such evidence has been elicited from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Hence, the accused is found not guilty for the offence U/s. 354 of Indian Penal Code.
61In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/s.354 of Indian Penal Code and accordingly he is acquitted under Section 235 (1) of Cr.P.C.
The accused is found guilty for the offence U/s.302, 307 and 324 of Indian Penal Code and is convicted U/s. 235 (2) of Cr.P.C.
Partly dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open court on this the 19th day of May, 2022.
III ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE,
RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.
Page No. 32 of 34
SC 393 of 2021
` Committing murder and attempting to commit murder are grave offences and the accused cannot be dealt U/s. 360 of Cr.P.C or under
Probation of offenders Act. Hence, the accused is heard on the Quantum of Sentence.
Heard the accused on quantum of Sentence:
He stated that he did not commit any offence and he cannot say anything.
62.The accused has committed the murder of the deceased with an iron rod and earlier the accused used to stay with the family of the deceased for a period of four or five years and was working under him.
Inspite of expressing gratitude for giving him employment the accused in turn with an evil intention wanted to grab the money of the deceased and kill him and also assaulted his wife and brother. This attitude of the accused does not deserve any leniency. However, the above said case cannot be the rarest of rare case and therefore, I am not inclined to award capital punishment to the accused.
63.In the result, the accused shall under sentence of Imprisonment for Life for the offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred only) in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.Further the accused shall under go Rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years for the offence under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code and pay a fine of Rs.300/- (Rupees Three hundred only) in default Simple
Imprisonment for a period of Three months. Furtherthe accused is
Page No. 33 of 34
SC 393 of 2021
` sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence under Section 324 of IPC. The above sentences shall run concurrently. The period of imprisonment undergone by the accused shall set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.
The seized material objects ie., MO-1 is the iron rod, MO-2 is the
Bed sheet, MO-3 is the Ash colour short, MO-4 is the Bed sheet, MO-5 is the Towel, MO-6 is the Pant, MO-7 is the Shirt shall be destroyed after the appeal period is over, if no appeal is preferred.
The accused informed that he can prefer an appeal against the
Judgment to the Hon’ble High Court and that he is entitled for for free legal aid.
Partly dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open court on this the 19th day of May, 2022.
III ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE,
RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF
PROSECUTION DEFENCE
PW-1 A. Swetha Rai,NIL PW-2 Reena Rai, PW-3 Indrashan Rai, PW-4 Dheerender Rai, PW-5 Manoj Rai, PW-6 Mohd. Sirajuddin, PW-7 Md. Subhan, PW-8 G. Siddulu, PW-9 Dr. K.V. Ramana Murthy, PW-10 Dr.Srinivas Prasad, PW-11 Dr. M. Chandrashekhar, PW-12 Mohd. Abdul Hayyum, PW-13 Ch. Devaki, PW-14 Dr. P. Swapna, PW-15 S.Vishnuvardhan Reddy,
Page No. 34 of 34
SC 393 of 2021
`
EXHIBITS MARKED FOR
PROSECUTION
Ex.P-1 is the complaint, Ex.P-2 is the crime detail form, Ex.P-3 is the inquest panchanama, Ex.P-4 is the relevant portion of recovery panchanama, Ex.P-5 is the relevant portion of recovery panchanama, Ex.P-6 is the PME report, Ex.P-7 is the injury certificate issued by PW-11, Ex.P-8 is the FIR, Ex.P-9 is the alteration memo, Ex.P-10 is the FSL report,
DEFENCE
NIL
MOs marked:- MO-1 is the iron rod, MO-2 is the Bed sheet, MO-3 is the Ash colour short, MO-4 is the Bed sheet, MO-5 is the Towel, MO-6 is the Pant, MO-7 is the Shirt,
III ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE,
RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.
Order Record 2 total
| Case No. | Parties | Date | Type | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SC.MU/3000393/2021 | PS. Pahadishareef vs Vikaram Berah, S/o. Niranjan Berah | 19 May 2022 | Judgement | Acquitted |
| SC/3000281/2021 | PS Shamshabad vs Pallapolu Raju alias Raju Alias Thimmaiah s/o. Late Anjaiah | 18 May 2022 | Judgement | Convicted |
Frequently Asked Questions
How many cases has Smt.K.Sailaja handled?
Smt.K.Sailaja has handled 2 court orders since 2022 at Rangareddy, PDJ Court Complex. The average disposal rate is 2 orders per month.
What types of cases does Smt.K.Sailaja hear?
Based on available records, Smt.K.Sailaja primarily handles Criminal matters (Sessions Cases) at Rangareddy, PDJ Court Complex.
Where is Smt.K.Sailaja currently posted?
Smt.K.Sailaja is posted as III Addl District Judge at Rangareddy, PDJ Court Complex, Rangareddy, Telangana.
Are judgments by Smt.K.Sailaja available online?
Yes. 2 judgments by Smt.K.Sailaja are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.
How fast does Smt.K.Sailaja dispose cases?
Smt.K.Sailaja disposes approximately 2 cases per month, based on 2 orders handled over their tenure at Rangareddy, PDJ Court Complex.
Since when is Smt.K.Sailaja serving?
Smt.K.Sailaja has been serving at Rangareddy, PDJ Court Complex since 2022.
Case Types
Posting History
-
May 2022 — May 2022III Addl District Judge · 2 orders
-
May 2022 — May 2022IV ADJ-IV Addl.MSJ-cum-I Addl.Family Court
-
May 2022 — May 2022Family Court Judge
Outcomes on Record
Other Judges at this Court