IN THE COURT OF SPL.SESSIONS JUDGE FOR FAST TRACKING THE
CASES OF ATROCITIES AGAINST WOMEN, NIZAMABAD.
Present: K.Sudarshan,
Judge, Family Court-cum-ADJ Court,
Nizamabad. FAC: Spl. Sessions Judge For Fast Tracking the Cases Of Atrocities Against Women, Nizamabad.
Dated this the 27th day of February, 2018
SC. No. 257 of 2016
(PRC No. 18 of 2016 on the file of the JMFC, Armoor)
Committed byJudicial Magistrate of First Class, Armoor.
Cr.No.& Police StationCr.No.116 of 2015 Police Station, Armoor 1.Description of the Accused:Are Vamshi, S/o Gangadher, age accused20 years, caste: SC Mala, occ:Agrl, R/o Kothapalli village of Velpoor mandal.
2. Charge Under Sec.376(1), 366, 448 of IPC against accused.
3. Plea of the accusedNot guilty
4. Finding of the Accused is found not guilty of the offence
Judgepunishable under Secs.376(1), 366, 448 of
IPC.
5. Sentence or orderAcquittal
6. Prosecution Addl. Public Prosecutor, Nizamabad. conducted by
7. Accused defended Sri Pavan Prasad byAdvocate for Accused.
This case is coming before me on 22-2-2018 for hearing and disposal in the presence of Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri Pavan Prasad, Advocate for accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court makes the following:
J U D G M E N T
1. This is a case of accused criminally trespassing into the house of victim girl and kidnapping her to Hyderabad, where he married her and enjoyed with her physically, allegedly 2
SC.257 of 2016
committed by the accused punishable u/secs.376(1), 366, & 448 of IPC.
2(a). As per the charge sheet laid by K.Seetharam,
Inspector of Police, Armoor, the case of the prosecution is that on 20-3-2015 at noon hours, the accused criminally trespassed into the house of victim girl Sokkan Kavya, forcibly picked up her on his motorcycle from her house at Chepoor village and went to Metpally, where he sold away his motorcycle for
Rs.20,000/- and then both went to Hyderabad and performed marriage at Jagannath temple, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.
Thereafter, the accused took a flat on rent at Rajunagar,
Khairathabad, Hyderabad and physically enjoyed with the said girl, who is minor, aged 17 years.
2(b). On the complaint lodged by the mother of the victim girl, a case in Cr.No.116/2015 under the head Girl Missing was registered by K.Ravi Kumar, Inspector of Police, Armoor and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation, he examined and recorded the statement of the complainant, the mother of the victim girl. On 1-8-2015 the victim girl herself came to the police station and revealed that on 15-8-2014 in the marriage of her younger mother's son Are Vinod, the accused was introduced her and it led to both fell in love and on 28-1-2015 both went to Hyderabad and got married at
Jagannatha temple and they have taken a room on rent basis and enjoyed sexually. Basing on the statement of the victim,
Section of Law 376 IPC is added. On 1-8-2012 the victim girl was examined by the Medical Officer and the medical officer preserved a small piece of foetal tissue and collected blood sample. On 1-8-2015 the accused was apprehended at 3
SC.257 of 2016
Hyderabad and was brought to Police Station, Armoor and on enquiry, the accused confessed that he has love affair with the victim girl, as such, he took her away to Hyderabad, where he married with her and took a flat on rent at Rajunagar,
Khairathabad, Hyderabad and physically enjoyed with her. On that, K.Ravikumar, Inspector of Police, affected the arrest of accused. Further the investigating officer examined one
Boparam Vishnu. The medical officer Dr.B.Vijaya Bhasker Rao, conducted potency test of the accused and furnished his opinion that the accused was not able to do and capable for sexual act.
Later DNA test was conducted and the report revealed that accused is not the biological father of foetal tissue which was taken fro the victim and the biological mother of the foetal tissue is “Sokkam Kavya”. As such, the medical officer furnished his opinion that S.Kavya is the biological mother of Fetus, whereas accused is not the biological father of fetus. After completion of investigation, K.Seetharam, Inspector of Police,
Armoor filed charge sheet against the accused in this case.
3. The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Armoor has taken the said charge sheet on file as PRC No.18 of 2016 for the offences punishable under sections 376(1), 366 and 448 of
IPC against the accused. Copies of the documents were furnished to the accused under section 209 (a), Cr.PC. and thereafter the case was committed to the Sessions Court,
Nizamabad for trial. Later the same was made over to this court.
4. After hearing both sides and on consideration of the material on record, charges for the offences punishable under sections 376(1), 366 and 448 of IPC are framed, read over and 4
SC.257 of 2016
explained to the accused. He denied the said charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. Now the points which arose for determination of this
Court is; whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the
Accused for the offences punishable under sections 376(1), 366 & 448 IPC, beyond reasonable doubt.
6. The prosecution got examined PWs-1 to 7 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-12, in support of its case.
7. After closure of the evidence of the prosecution,
Accused was examined u/s 313, Cr.PC, wherein he denied the incriminating evidence found against him and reported no defence evidence.
8. Heard arguments on both sides and perused the record.
9. Point: As per the case of the prosecution the accused lured the victim girl and forcibly took her from her house to Hyderabad, where he married with her at Jagannath temple, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad and took a flat on rent at
Rajunagar, Khairathabad, Hyderabad, where he enjoyed with her sexually. The complainant and mother of the victim girl is examined as Pw1. As per Pw1, S.Kavya is her daughter, studying 1st Year of Intermediate and was staying in the house of her mother in Munipally village. Three years ago, at the time of examination, her daughter came to her house in Chepoor village and stayed with her. At that time, she went to a village on work and when she returned to the house in the afternoon and she has not seen her daughter in the house. As such, she made enquiry with the neighbours and relatives and also made search, 5
SC.257 of 2016
but her daughter was not found. Therefore, on 22-3-2015 she went to Armoor Police Station and made a report to the police about missing of her daughter suspecting the accused. Ex.P1 is the said report.
10. Pw2 who is the nephew of Pw1 deposed that Kavya was staying in the house of Pw1 and attending the examination of Intermediate first year and about three years ago, on one day, Pw1 informed him that Kavya was missing from her house.
Then they went to Armoor Police Station and Pw1 made a report to the police about missing of her daughter.
It is the case of the prosecution that Pw2 used to take the victim girl to the place of examination and again taking back her to house and on 20-3-2015 also he did the same duty and after examination dropped her at her house in the after noon and later accused forcibly took away Kavya on his motorcycle and that he chased him and asked him to sop, but the accused did not stop and threatened to kill him, but Pw2 has not deposed any such facts in his evidence. As such, he was declared as hostile and cross-examined. During cross-examination, Pw2 denied the suggestions and except marking his statement under
ExP2 nothing could be elicited to disprove his testimony.
11. Pw3 is the victim girl in this case. Her evidence is that Pw1 is her mother and Pw2 is her elder brother. She categorically deposed that the accused is not known to her and that she does not know whether when she was a student of first year Intermediate, her mother made a report to the police about her missing from the house and at the time of her examination whether Pw2 was taking her to the examination centre and bringing back to the house on his motorcycle. Pw3 further 6
SC.257 of 2016
stated that she did not go with the accused at that time having been in love with him without informing her parents. She further stated that she did not marry the accused at Banjara Hills temple and they did not stay in a rented apartment together and did not have physical contacts with the accused at any time.
As Pw3, who is the material witness and victim girl in this case, has completely turned her version and failed to say any incriminating material against the accused much less he kidnapped her forcibly from her house, taken her to Hyderbaad, and married her at Jagannatha temple and physically enjoyed with her at a rented apartment. As this material witness has not supported the case of prosecution, she was also declared as hostile and cross-examined at length, but she denied all the suggestions. Her cross-examination could not elicit any facts of the prosecution case and remained unshaken. However, except marking her 161 CrPC statement as Ex.P3 nothing worth could be elicited to disprove her testimony.
12. Pw4 is the medical officer, who conducted potency test of the accused and issued Ex.P4 certificate and his findings are that there was nothing to suggest that accused was not able to do and capable for sexual act.
13. Pw5 is the lady medical officer examined the victim girl Pw3, who complained to two months amenorrhea with bleeding per vagina with abdominal pain and conception of products taken and sent to Forensic Science Laboratory and gave report Ex.P5 and under Ex.P6 letter dt. 22-8-2015 she forwarded the fetus of the victim girl to the Forensic Science
Laboratory. Later she received Forensic Science Laboratory report under Ex.P8, which discloses that accused is not the 7
SC.257 of 2016
biological father of said foetal tissue, but the victim girl is the biological mother of the same. Accordingly, she gave her opinion under Ex.P9 stating the victim girl is the biological mother of the foetus and Are Vamshi (accused) is not the biological father of the said foetus.
14. Pw6 is the Investigating Officer, who deposed that earlier to him, N.Bose Kiran worked as Sub-Inspector of Police in
Armoor Police Station and K.Ravi Kumar worked as Inspector of
Police in the same police station, and he can identify their hand writing and signatures. On 22-3-2015 Pw1 lodged Ex.P1 report, on that the said K.Ravi Kumar, Inspector of Police registered a case in Cr.No.116/2015 regarding missing of a girl and issued
Ex.P10 FIR and entrusted the investigation to N.Bose Kiran, S.I.
of Police, who in turn examined and recorded the statement of pw1, visited the scene of offence, examined and recorded the statement of Pw2 and basing on the statement of Pw2, altered the Section of law to Sections 366-A, 448 and 506 IPC and submitted alteration memo Ex.P11 before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Armoor. On transfer of said N.Bose Kiran, SI of
Police, he handed over further investigation of this case to him.
On 1-8-2015 Pw3 victim girl came to their police station and he recorded her statement. Basing upon such a statement, he added Section 376 IPC and submitted alteration memo Ex.P12 to the Court. Subsequently, he handed over the further investigation to K.Ravi Kumar, Inspector of Police, Armoor.
15. Pw7 is another investigating officer. As per his evidence on 22-3-2017 he examined Pw1 and recorded his statement and on 23-3-2015 he went to the scene of offence in
Chepoor village and examined and recorded the statement of
Pw2 and basing on the statement of Pw3, he added the Section 8
SC.257 of 2016
of law and submitted Ex.P12 to the Court. On 1-8-2015 N.Bose
Kiran, SI of Police apprehended the accused at Hyderabad, brought him to the police station and produced him before
K.Ravi Kumar, Inspector of Police, and on interrogation voluntarily confessed his guilt in this case. After conducting potency test through Pw4, arrest of the accused was affected and was produced before the Court for remand him to judicial custody. Further the accused was referred to Forensic Science
Laboratory to undergo DNA Test. The victim girl Pw3 was referred to Pw5 for medical examination and her blood sample was collected and sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical analysis. After collecting the reports from the Forensic
Science Laboratory and after completion of investigation, he filed the charge sheet against the accused.
16. A close scrutiny of the above evidence of Pws.1 to 7 reveals that Pw1 is the mother of the victim girl stated above missing of her daughter and her making search and filing report against the accused only on suspicion. The evidence of Pw2 who is the cousin of the victim girl and eye witness, who alleged to have seen the accused taking the victim girl on his bike and he chased him and asked him to stop, and accused threatened to kill him, such facts are not found place in his evidence and his evidence was only to the extent that Pw1 informed him about missing of Kavya from her house and that he went to police station along with Pw1. The crucial witness in this case is the victim girl herself, but her evidence as Pw3 is quite different from the prosecution case and categorically stated that accused is not known to her and she also denied about her love affair with the accused and her being kidnapped by the accused.
Pws.1 to 3 are the material witnesses in this case. The evidence 9
SC.257 of 2016
of Pw1 is to the extent that she suspected the accused only, whereas Pw2 the eye witness and Pw3 the victim girl herself failed to say any incriminating fact that accused kidnapped Pw3 to Hyderabad, married her and had physical enjoyed with her at a rented apartment. As such, both Pws.2 & 3 were declared hostile and cross-examined, but nothing could be elicited to disprove their testimony. Moreover, the evidence of Pw5 lady medical officer and her final opinion under Ex.P9 clearly shows that accused is not the biological father of foetus, whereas the victim girl Pw3 is the biological mother of foetus. As such, the very allegation against the accused that by luring the victim, he kidnapped her to Hyderabad and after marriage enjoyed her physically and ultimately made the victim pregnant, is beyond the reach of truth. The evidence of Pws.6 & 7 who are the investigating officers is only procedural nature with regard to investigation in this case. The evidence of Pw3 before the Court and her statement under Ex.P2 is quite differs from each other and it shows dichotomy on the part of victim girl Pw3. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances stated above, this Court concedes that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt as it failed to establish any of the charges made against Accused.
Accordingly, the point is answered by this court in favour of the accused and against the prosecution.
17. In the result, Accused is found not guilty of the offences punishable u/s 376(1), 366 and 448 of IPC and he is acquitted of the same u/s.235 (1), Cr.P.C. His bail bonds shall stand cancelled after expiry of the appeal period.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this 27th day of February, 2018.
10
SC.257 of 2016
FAC.Spl.Sessions Judge for Fast Tracking the Cases of Atrocities against Women, Nizamabad.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined
For Prosecution:
PW-1Smt.Sokkam Raja Gangu PW-2 Sarda Prasanth PW-3Sokkam Kavya PW-4Dr.B.Vijaya Bhasker Rao PW-5Dr.K.Annapurna PW-6V.Santhosh Kumar,IO PW-7K.Seetharam, IO
For Defence: -NIL-
EXHIBITS MARKED
For Prosecution: Ex.P1:Report, dt. 22-3-2015 Ex.P2:161 Cr.PC statement of PW2 Ex.P3:161 Cr.PC statement of Pw3 Ex.P4:Potency Test report, dt. 1-8-2015 Ex.P5:Medical report of Pw3 given by Pw5 Ex.P6:Attested copy of letter dt. 22-8-2015 addressed by
Pw5 to Director FSL, Hyderabad Ex.P7: Attested copy of letter of advice dt. 15-8-2015 forwarding material objects to an Expert
Ex.P8:FSL Report, dt. 9-5-2016 Ex.P9:Final Opinion, dt. 19-7-2016 Ex.P10:FIR., dt. 22-3-2015 Ex.P11:Alteration Memo, dt.23-3-2015 altering the Section of law from Girl Missing to Sec.366-A,448,506 IPC
Ex.P12:Alteration Memo dt. 1-8-2015 adding Section of Law 376 IPC to existing Sections 366-A,448 & 506 IPC.
For Defence : -NIL-
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED
-NIL-
FAC.Spl.Sessions Judge for Fast Tracking the Cases of Atrocities against Women,Nizamabad.
11
SC.257 of 2016
12
SC.257 of 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE SPL.SESSIONS JUDGE FOR FAST TRACKING
THE CASES RELATING TO ATROCITIES AGAINST WOMEN
AT NIZAMABAD.
Present: K.Sudarshan,
Judge, Family Court-cum-ADJ Court
Nizamabad. (FAC.Spl.Sessions Judge for Fast Tracking the cases relating to Attrocities Against Women at Nizamabad)
Dated on this 22nd day of February, 2018
S.C. No. 134 of 2016 (PRC No. 26 of 2012 on the file of the Addl.JMFC, Armoor)
Committed byAddl.JMFC, Armoor
Cr.No.& PSCr.No.46 of 2012 PS Bheemgal.
1.Description of the A1:Bhukya Vasanth @ Vasanth Rao S/o accusedPeeka,Age:30years, Caste:Lambada, Occ: Agriculture, R/ o Rupla Thanda of Bada Bheemgal village of Bheemgal Mandal, Dist. Nizamabad.
(Case against A1 split up from the mainSC.No.257/2012vide Proc.Dis.No.2517 dt.12-5-2016 of the Prl.Dist.& Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.)
2. Charge Under Secs.302, 201 r/w.34 IPC
3. Plea of the accusedNot guilty
4. Finding of the JudgeA1 is found not guilty for the offence u/s.302 & 201 r/w.34 IPC.
5. Sentence or order Acquitted
6. Prosecution conducted Addl.Public Prosecutor, Nizamabad by
7. Accused defended bySri K.Chinya Naik, Advocate for A1
This case is coming before me on 21-2-2018 for hearing and disposal in the presence of Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri K.Chinya Naik, Advocate for A1 and having 13
SC.257 of 2016
stood over for consideration till this day, the Court made the following:
J U D G M E N T
1. This is a case of murder, allegedly committed by
Accused Nos.1 & 2 by strangulating Bhukya Peeka to death and thrown the dead body into the well to screening the evidence, punishable u/secs.302, 201 r/w.34 of IPC.
2. As per the charge sheet laid by K.Purushotham, CI of
Police, Bheemgal, the case of the prosecution briefly is that the A1 and A2 are husband and wife. A1 is the first wife's son of Bhukya
Peeka. Two years back, A1 went to Gulf countries for his livelihood.
As such, taking advantage of absence of A1, Bhukya Peeka used to enter into the room of A2 and harassed her to fulfill his sexual lust and quarreling with her. Accused No.2 informed the same to A1 and on the request of A2, A1 returned to India. Ever since the returning of
A1, the said Bhukya Peeka used to quarrel with A1 and A2, thus, both
A1 and A2 started residing separately. Meanwhile, the said Bhukya
Peeka sold his motorcycle and handed over the amount to his second wife, who is residing at Manik Bhandar village. There were disputes with regard to clear off the debts in between the said Bhukya Peeka and A1 & A2. As such, both the accused persons developed grudge against him and decided to kill him and hatched a plan. According to their plan on 14-5-2012 at about 0400 hours, both the accused persons left the house and sat in the bushes by the side of D.B.Cart at Chengal village sivar and A1 collected one stick in the fields and waiting for the arrival of said Bhukya Peeka, who used to go to
Ankapoor village to purchase vegetables and at about 5-15 a.m.
when he came near to them on TVS XL Super vehicle, A1 way-laid and beat him, resulting Bhukya Peeka fell down on the ground.
14
SC.257 of 2016
Immediately, A1 tied a towel around his neck, whereas A2 caught hold both of his legs and then A1 strangulated him to death. Later, both A1 and A2 thrown the dead body n the dilapidated agricultural well and also thrown the XL Super Vehicle in the said well to create a scene that the deceased accidentally fell down in the well.
3.On the complaint, P.Rakesh, S.I. of Police, Bheemgal P.S.
registered a case in Cr.No.46/2012 for the offences u/s.302 & 201 IPC and issued Express FIRs to all the concerned and took up investigation. Subsequently, K.Purushotham, CI of Police, Bheemgal
P.S. took up the further investigation of this case and during the course of investigation, he examined and recorded the statement of complainant, visited the scene, held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in presence of Jinna Bhumaiah and Degavath Narsaiah, and also conducted scene of offence panchanama, drawn rough sketch of the scene. Further, he seized one Towel, one pair of
Slippers and one Paper of Pass Port Xerox No.F 5546752 belongs to
A1 and one TVS XL Super bearing No.AP 9 PF 1529 from the scene of offence under the cover of panchanama. After taking the photographs of the dead body, subjected the corpse for postmortem examination. Thereafter examined and recorded the statements of other witnesses. The Medical Officer who conducted autopsy over the dead body opined that the cause of death is due to “ Asphyxia due to strangulation”.
On 18-5-2012 both the accused persons A1 & A2 were apprehended and on interrogation, voluntarily confessed to have committed this offence. Accordingly, their confession panchanama was recorded in presence of Kommu Ashok and Jadala Gangadhar.
Thereafter, affected their arrest and sent them to Court for judicial remand. Thus, after completion of investigation, laid charge sheet 15
SC.257 of 2016
against the accused Nos.1 & 2 for the offence punishable u/s.302,201 r/w.34 IPC.
3. The learned Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Armoor took the said charge sheet on file and registered the same as PRC
No.26 of 2012 for the offences punishable under sections 302,201 r/w.34 of IPC against the accused persons. Copies of the documents were furnished to the accused persons under section 209 (a) Cr.PC.
and thereafter the case was committed to the Sessions Court for trial.
4. After hearing both sides and on consideration of the material on record, charges for the offence punishable under sections 302, 201 r/w.34 of IPC were framed, read over and explained to them.
They denied the said charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5.Since the Accused No.1 was being absent, NBW was issued against him and the police filed report stating, A1 went abroad, the case against A1 split up from the main SC.No.257/2012 vide Proc.Dis.No.2517 dt.12-5-2016 of the Prl.Dist.& Sessions Judge,
Nizamabad.
6. Now the points which arose for determination of this court are :
(i) Whether the death of the deceased is homicidal one caused by
A1 and his wife? and
(ii) Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of Accused
No.1 for the offences punishable under sections 302, 201 r/w.34 of
IPC, beyond reasonable doubt?.
16
SC.257 of 2016
7. The prosecution got examined PWs-1 to 10 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-28 and Mos.1 to 5, in support of its case.
8. After closure of the evidence of the prosecution, Accused
No.1 was examined under section 313 Cr.PC. wherein he denied the incriminating evidence found against him and reported no defence evidence.
9. Heard arguments on both sides and perused the record.
10. POINT Nos.(i) and (ii): The case of the prosecution is that
A1 is the son of deceased through his first wife and A2 is the wife of
A1. When A1 went to Gulf countries for his livelihood, in his absence, the deceased used to enter into the house of A2 for his sexual desires and when she refused, he used to quarrel with her and the same was informed by her to A1. As such, A1 returned to India and since then, the deceased used to quarrel with A1 and A2. As such, both A1 and
A2 started residing separately. However, the deceased used to quarrel with A1 and A2 to clear his debts. Vexed with the harassment of the deceased, they decided to eliminate the deceased. According to their plan on 14-5-2012 while the deceased, as usual, was going to Ankapoor on his TVS XL Super to purchase vegetables, A1 way- laid, beat him with stick. On that the deceased fell down on the road, immediately A2 caught hold his legs and A1 with the help of a towel, strangulated the deceased to death and in order to screen away the evidence, thrown the dead body of the deceased and his TVS XL
Super into a dilapidated agricultural well. In order to connect the accused No.1 with the charge, the prosecution in all examined Pws.1 to 10. The evidence is brought on record by the prosecution through
Pws. 1 to 10.
17
SC.257 of 2016
Pw1 is the complainant and brother of the deceased, on whose complaint, the police machinery was set into motion. His evidence is that deceased Bhukya Peeka is his brother, who has to wives and two children with first wife, one son and one daughter. Pw1 specifically stated that deceased died around 3 years back but he does not know the cause of his death and that he did not give any complaint. However, police obtained his thumb impression and that he do not know the contents of complaint.
11. Pw1 is supposed to say the facts that A1 is the son of his deceased brother and A2 is the wife of A1 and his brother used to go the house of A2 in the absence of A1 and used to quarrel with her to fulfill his sexual desire , as such, on her request, A1 returned to India.
But Pw1 has not stated in his evidence the said facts. He also not stated about the facts that ever since the return of A1 to India, quarrels took place in between the deceased and A1 & A2 that A1 was demanding the deceased to partition the land and give his share and stating that the deceased giving money to his second wife and leaving debts for the accused, which was the root cause of murder of his brother by A1 and A2. As this witness Pw1 failed to support the case of the prosecution, he was declared as hostile and cross- examined, but he denied all the suggestions. Except marking his statement recorded u/s.161 Cr.P.C. under Ex.P21, nothing worth could be elicited to disprove his testimony.
12. Pw2 is the 1st wife of the deceased and mother of A1 deposed that her husband died around 3 years ago and that she does not know the cause of his death. As this witness also failed to support the case of the prosecution, she was declared as hostile and cross- examined at length. During the cross-examination, the learned 18
SC.257 of 2016
Addl.P.P. tried to elicit that on 14-5-2012 at 5-00 a.m. her deceased husband went on his motorcycle from their house to Rupla Thanda to purchase the vegetables but did not return and during search on 15- 5-2012 they came to know that in the agricultural dried well of
Baddam Bajanna in the outskirts of Chengal village a dead body of a male person and a motorcycle were lying, they went there and found the dead body of her husband and his motorcycle, but this witness
Pw2 denied the said suggestion. Further Pw2 denied that she suspected A1 to have killed her husband and laid his dead body in the said well and that she suspected A1 for the reason that for the past some days, A1 was demanding her deceased husband to partition the land and give his share to him and alleging that the deceased was giving money to his second wife and leaving debts for the accused and on the said ground, A1 was quarrelling with the deceased. Except marking her 161 Cr.P.C. under Ex.P22, nothing worth elicited during her cross-examination to connect the accused with the crime.
13. The photographer, who has taken the photos of the dead body of the deceased is examined as Pw3. His evidence is formal one that on the request of police, he photographed a dead body of male at Chengal sivar and that he took 10 snaps and the same photos are marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P15.
14. The medical officer who conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased is examined as Pw4.
According to him, he conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and issued Ex.P16 Postmortem Examination Certificate opining that the cause of death to the best of his knowledge is
Asphyxia due to strangulation. Pw4 was cross-examined wherein he stated that in cases of strangulation, presence of large ligature mark around the neck is a common phenomenon and he did not mention 19
SC.257 of 2016
about the ligature mark in Ex.P16 Postmortem Examination Report.
However, he stated that each case is different one and ligature mark may be present in one case and may be absent in another case, but he noted down the pressure over the neck, extravagation of blood in front of the neck and fracture of hyoid which leads his conclusion that it is a strangulation death.
15. Pw5 is the panch for confession cum seizure panchanama. As per his evidence, on the request of police, he enquired with A2, wherein she confessed that in the absence of her husband(A1), herself and deceased were living together and deceased harassed insisting her for sexual gains, as such, in order to do away him, made a plan and killed the deceased with the help of her husband and she also stated that accused attacked the deceased with strong stick over the head and thrown him in agricultural well and they thrown the stick in the bushes and shows the said stick marked as MO.1. Anyhow, during the cross-examination, Pw5 admitted that in Ex.P17 confession, A2 did not disclose about the weapon which was used. However, the alleged confession of A2
before Pw5 do not show any impact on the case on hand, since Pw5
has not whispered anything that A1 also confessed before him and his involvement in the alleged offence. Hence, reliance cannot be placed on the testimony of Pw5.
16. Pw6 is the Investigating Officer in this case. His evidence is to the extent of his receiving CD file from P.Ramesh, SI of Police, who registered the case and issued FIR and then, he took up the investigation in this case. His further evidence is about conducting scene of offence panchanama Ex.P26 and seizure of material objects
MO.1 stick, MO2 TVS Excel, MO3 Cotton towel, MO4 Slippers and
MO.5 xerox copy of passport of A1, and got photographed the scene of offence and dead body of the deceased. Further he stated that he 20
SC.257 of 2016
conducted inquest over the dead body and as per column NO.15 of inquest report, the panchas opined that the deceased was strangulated to death by a towel as they have seen strangulation ligature mark and sent the dead body for postmortem examination.
Further evidence of Pw6 that on 18-5-2012 they apprehended A1 and
A2 and recorded their confession statements and recovered MO.1 under the cover of panchanama and affected their arrest,produced them before the Court for judicial remand and that after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against A1 and A2. Through this witness Ex.P18 confessional panchanama of accused No.1 is marked. Though Pw6 is cross-examined but nothing could be elicited to disprove his testimony. However, to substantiate the confession made by A1, no panch witness is examined.
17. The evidence of another Investigating Officer Pw7 is that he received a written complaint from Pw1 and registered the case in
Cr.No.46/2011 u/s.302,201 IPC and issued FIR Ex.P19 and the complaint presented by Pw1 is marked as Ex.P20 which contains the thumb impression of Pw1 and later handed over the CD file to Pw6 for further investigation.
18. Pw8 and Pw9 are the witnesses in this case and they are resident of Roopla Thanda, Bada Bheemgal village and Mandal and both knows the accused and the deceased. Both these witnesses, residing in the same Thanda were expected to have knowledge of factual reason for the death of the deceased, but both these witnesses have not stated anything much less against the accused to connect with the alleged offence. As such, both these witnesses were declared as hostile and cross-examined, but except marking their 161
Cr.P.C. statements under Ex.P23 & Ex.P24, nothing could be elicited to disprove their testimony.
21
SC.257 of 2016
19. Pw10 is the panch for scene of offence and inquest. As per his evidence, the police conducted scene of offence panchanama and inquest panhanama in their presence and police seized TVS XL
Motorcycle. Through this witness Ex.P25 Crime Detail Form, Ex.P26
Scene of offence cum seizure panchanama, Ex.P27 rough sketch map of the scene of offence, and Ex.P28 Inquest panchanama are marked.
20. A close scrutiny of the above evidence discloses that undoubtedly, the death of the deceased was not a natural death and it is alleged that A1 herein and his wife both have committed murder of the deceased for the alleged reasons as stated supra. As a matter of fact, Pw1 the complainant in this case and he is the brother of the deceased, Pw2 & Pw3 are the wives of the deceased, have not spoken a single word against the accused No.1 to connect him to the alleged murder of the deceased. Pw1 to Pw3 are the kith and kin of the deceased, who have well versed with the facts of the case but they have not supported the case of the prosecution and turned hostile. So also Pws.8 &9 who belong to same locality of the deceased and Pws.1 to 3, have failed to whisper anything against the involvement of A1 in the murder of the deceased. As stated supra, the evidence of Pw5, the panch for confession of A2 is to some extent in favour of the prosecution, however, he has not spelled anything against the confession of A1. The panch before whom, the alleged confession panchanama of A1 was recorded is not examined before this Court and his evidence was given up, which is fatal to the case of prosecution. More over, as the material witnesses Pws.1 to3 turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution, much reliance cannot be placed on the evidence of Investigating Officers Pws.6 & 7.
Though the evidence of Pw5 Medical Officer is in favour of prosecution, who opined that to the best of his knowledge the cause of death of the deceased is due to strangulation, in the absence of 22
SC.257 of 2016
any corroborative evidence, it cannot be concluded that the death of the deceased is due to strangulation caused by A1. Moreover, the other accused in this case is A2, who is none other than the wife of
A1 herein, was already found not guilty and acquitted vide judgment in SC.No.257/2012 dtd.13-6-2017. Hence, there is nothing left more to discuss except to hold that the accused No.1 herein is found not guilty for the offence with which he stood charged. Therefore, I am of the holistic view that there is no iota of evidence to connect the accused No.1 with this crime. Therefore, this Court is left with holding that the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused No.1 beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the Points are answered against the prosecution by giving benefit of doubt to accused No.1 and acquittal.
21. In the result, Accused No.1 is found not guilty of the offence punishable under sections 302 & 201 r/w. 34 IPC and he is acquitted of the same under section 235(1), Cr.PC. His bail bonds shall stand cancelled after expiry of the appeal period.
Mos.1 and 3 to 5 shall be destroyed and MO.2 TVS Excel Moped shall be returned to the concerned, after expiry of the appeal period.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this 22nd day of February, 2018.
FAC.Spl.Sessions Judge for Fast Tracking the cases relating to Atrocities Against Women at Nizamabad.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
23
SC.257 of 2016
Witnesses examined
For Prosecution:
PW-1 PW-2 PW-3
For Defence -NIL-
EXHIBITS MARKED
For Prosecution: Ex.P1: Ex.P2: Ex.P3: Ex.P4: Ex.P5:
For Defence -NIL- ::M.Os.Marked:
FAC.Spl.Sessions Judge for Fast Tracking the cases relating to Atrocities Against Women at Nizamabad.
24
SC.257 of 2016
25
SC.257 of 2016
CALENDAR
IN THE COURT OF SPL.SESSIONS JUDGE FOR FAST TRACKING THE
CASES OF ATROCITIES AGAINST WOMEN, NIZAMABAD.
Present: K.Sudarshan,
Judge, Family Court-cum-ADJ Court,
Nizamabad. FAC: Spl. Sessions Judge For Fast Tracking the Cases Of Atrocities Against Women, Nizamabad.
Dated on this 27th day of February, 2018
S.C.No.257 of 2016 (PRC No. 18 of 2016 on the file of the JFCM, Armoor)
BETWEEN: The State through Inspector of Police, Police Station, Armoor.
…. Complainant
AND
Are Vamshi, S/o Gangadher, age 20 years, caste: SC Mala, occ:Agrl, R/o Kothapalli village of Velpoor mandal. ….Accused
1. Date of offence : 20-03-2015
2. Date of complaint/report : 22-03-2015
3. Date of apprehension of accused : 01-08-2015
4. Date of commitment : 31-10-2016
5. Date of commencement of trial : 13-11-2017
6. Date of closure of trial : 24-01-2018
7. Date of sentence or order : 27-02-2018
8. Charge : U/S 376 (1), 366 and 448 of IPC
9. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty.
10. Finding of Judge : Found not guilty.
11. Sentence or order :
In the result, Accused is found not guilty of the offences punishable u/s 376(1), 366 and 448 of IPC and he is acquitted of the same u/s.235 (1), Cr.P.C. His bail bonds shall stand cancelled after expiry of the appeal period.
FAC.Spl.Sessions Judge for Fast Tracking the cases relating to Atrocities Against Women at Nizamabad. To The Registrar (Judl.),
Hon’ble High Court of A.P. Hyderabad.