Sri Koduru Kishore Babu

APSR040000612022

IN THE COURT OF VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE:

SOMPETA.

Present : Sri KODURU KISHORE BABU, VI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Sompeta.

THURSDAY, THIS THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF APRIL, 2026.

S.C.No.54/2022

(PRC No.08/2022 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Pathapatnam, arising out of Crime No.109/2021 of Meliaputti Police Station).

Between :

The State represented by Inspector of Police, Pathapatnam Circle, Srikakulam District. …Complainant. And :

Savara Jagga Rao, S/o.Late Latchanna, Aged 45 years, Bharani Kota village, Meliaputti Mandal, Srikakulam District.

...Accused .

Offences charged: Under sections 302, 498-A of Indian Penal Code and sections 25 and 27 of Indian Arms Act.

Plea of the Accused : Pleaded Not guilty.

This petition is coming on 30-03-2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Learned Additional Public Prosecutor/Sri Duvvu Jagannayikulu for the State; and Sri K.Raju, Advocate for the Accused and upon perusing the entire material evidence on record and upon hearing arguments on both sides, this Court delivered the following :

SC.54/2022, Date:16-04-2026

VI Addl. District & Sessions Court, Sompeta. - 2 -

J U D G M E N T

01.The State represented by Inspector of Police, Pathapatnam Circle filed a charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.109/2021 of Meliaputti PS for the offence punishable under section 302,498-A of Indian Penal Code and sections 25 and 27 of Indian Arms Act against the accused alleging that the accused murdered his wife by name Savara Padma at his home.

02.The case of the prosecution as per averments of charge-sheet is as follows :-

That the accused is the resident of Bharanikota Village of Meliaputti Mandal the deceased/Padma is his wife. LW.1/Savara Narasimhulu is the defacto-complainant gave a report to the complainant police stating that the deceased/Padma is his elder sister and got married with the accused 13 years back and are blessed with two male children. LW.5/Savara Jagadeesh is the elder son and LW.10/Savara

Avinash is the younger son. The defacto-complainant further submitted in his report that after some period of marriage with his sister, accused is addicted to drinking alcohol and left his family to their paid and used to harass his sister

Padma/deceased suspecting her fidelity, further stated that on two or three occasions his sister came to their house as the accused is harassing her. Further the defacto-complainant stated that on all the occasions panchayats held before elders and the accused took his sister back to his matrimonial fold assuring that he will look after her well. The defacto-complainant further reported that the accused did not mend his behavior and beat his sister in intoxicant state threatening her that he will kill her at any time and the same was intimated to him by the deceased. The defacto- complainant further stated that on 16.10.2021 at about 4.30 PM he received a call from his elder nephew through his sister Padma mobile informing that his father/the accused shooted on his sister/Padma with a country made gun and resulting which the Padma died on the spot at their house. On that immediately he rushed to Bharanikota village to the house of his sister and found his

SC.54/2022, Date:16-04-2026

VI Addl. District & Sessions Court, Sompeta. - 3 - sister/Padma lying dead in a pool of blood. The defacto-complainant lodged report

before LW.32/V.Sandeep Kumar, SI of Meliaputti PS and the same was registered

as case in Cr.No.109/2021 under section 302, 498-A IPC and section 25 and 27of

Indian Arms Act. Further LW.32 informed to LW.33/Inspector of Police,

Pathapatnam Circle, on that LW.33 took up investigation as it is grave offence.

During the course of investigation, on 16.10.2021 LW.33/R.Raviprasad,

Inspector of Police, Pathapatnam Circle instructed LW.32/SIof police to safe guard the scene of offence and after informing to his higher authorities and clues team he proceeded to Meliaputti PS and there he found the defacto-complainant/Savara

Narasimhulu examined him and recorded his statement. On 17.10.2021 at about 6

AM secured the presence of LW.9/Nivagana Narayana Rao and LW.17/Perumalla

Kurmayya(mediators) and staff proceeded to scene of offence and observed the scene in the presence of mediators with the assistance of clues team and got prepared rough sketch, scene observation report, photographed the scene of offence collected the samples of blood and controlled swabs, silver colour powder,

Black colour powder, Black colour crystalline powder, steel balls and metal balls with the help of clues team, also seized crackers, blood stained steel balls, smoke impact swabs from the area of the wound at chest of deceased, mustard yellow coloured shirt pieces under the cover of scene observation report by obtaining photographs of the entire scene. Later LW.33 secured the presence of

LW.2/Savara Gangamma, LW.3/Savara Yendarao and LW.4/Savara Laxmi and

LW.5/Savara Jagadeesh examined and recorded their 161 Cr.P.C statements.

Further LW.33/Inspector of police conducted over the deceased body in the presence of blood relatives, mediators and examined and recorded 161 Cr.P.C.

statements of LW.6/Savara Sankar Rao, LW.7/Savara Buddayya and LW.8/Savara

Sarojini . Further the deceased body shifted for autopsy to CHC, Pathapatnam and there the clothes of the deceased were received under the cover of mediator report.

SC.54/2022, Date:16-04-2026

VI Addl. District & Sessions Court, Sompeta. - 4 -

On 18.10.2021 at about 9 AM LW.9/Nivagana Narayana Rao came to Meliaputti

Police station along with accused and his confessional statement, on that Inspector of Police recorded the confessional statement of accused, basing on the statement

LW.33/Inspector of Police and LW.32/SI of police along with mediators proceeded to Pattupuram Offshore reservoir and discovered the weapon country made gun and shirt of the accused under the cover of seizure report. Later the accused was sent for judicial remand and on 19.10.2021 LW.33 proceeded to Bharanikota village along with LW.32 to the house of accused secured the presence of LW.18/Savara

Ranga Rao examined and recorded his 161 Cr.P.C. statement. Further he proceeded to Thenthulingam village secured the presence of LW.11/Savara

Ananda Rao, LW.12./Savara Subhadramma, LW.13/Savara Raybari,

LW.14/Savara Bhageeradha, Savara Nageswar Rao/LW.15 and LW.16/Gavalapu

Mahesh examined and recorded their 161 Cr.P.C. statements. On 31.10.2021

LW.33 received preliminary PM report and on 05.11.2021 forwarded material objects to RFSL, Visakhapatnam to due process and further handed over the file to

LW.34. LW.34/M.Vinod Babu, Inspector of Police received CD file, and continued investigation. On 14.11.2021 LW.34 forwarded the material objects collected by

LW.33 to RFSL through due process, on 16.12.2021, LW.1, LW.2 and LW.9 were produced before Hon’ble JMFC Palasa for the purpose of recording 164 Cr.P.C.

statements. On 12.01.2022 and 14.01.2022 LW.34 received reports from RFSL, received verification report from Tahsildar, Meliaputti with regard to the permission/license to possession of country made gun and after obtaining permission for prosecuting the accused as he used unlicensed firearm and after obtaining all relevant documents he filed charge sheet against the accused u/sec.302, 498-A IPC and sections 25 and 27 of Indian Arms Act.

SC.54/2022, Date:16-04-2026

VI Addl. District & Sessions Court, Sompeta. - 5 - 3). The record discloses that the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Pathapatnam, has taken cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 302,498-A of Indian Penal Code and sectons 25 and 27 of Indian Arms Act against the Accused vide PRC.No.08/2022 in Cr.No.109/2021 of Meliaputti Police Station and committed the case to the Hon’ble Principle District and Sessions Court,

Srikakulam, as the offence involved in this case under Section 302, 498-A of IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. Further this case has been assigned with Sessions Case No.54/2022 and made-over to this Court, ie., VI Additional

District & Sessions Court, Sompeta, for disposal according to Law.

4). On receipt of the record, summons issued to the Accused. On appearance

Accused, heard the Learned Additional Public Prosecutor on charges and the accused was examined and charges under section 302,498-A of IPC and sections 25 and 27 of Indian Arms Act are framed against the accused. The charges were read-over and explained to the accused in Telugu, having understood the charges, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5).Dates for examination of prosecution witnesses is scheduled and fixed, also issued summons under section 230 Cr.P.C to the prosecution for compelling the presence of witnesses.

6) During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as 19 witnesses as

P.W.1 to P.W.19 and got exhibited Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.17 and M.O.1 to M.O.12 were marked on behalf of prosecution and the witnesses. Accused did not choose to defence but exhibits D.1 & D.2 are marked on behalf of defense. The learned Addl.

Public Prosecutor given up the witness evidence of LW.2, LW.3, LW.8,

LW.10,LW.11, LW.12,LW.14, LW.17, LW.20, LW.21, LW.23, LW.27 to LW.29 and

LW.31 in view of the evidence of the other prosecution witnesses.

SC.54/2022, Date:16-04-2026

VI Addl. District & Sessions Court, Sompeta. - 6 - 7).After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under

Section 313 Cr.P.C, by explaining the incriminating evidencing material adduced by prosecution witness against him in Telugu language, having understood the said evidence the accused denied the same and reported no evidence on their behalf.

8).Heard arguments on both sides. Perused the material available on record.

9).To prove the above case, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, submits that the prosecution on the whole examined P.Ws.1 to 19 and got marked Exhibits P-1 to P-17 and M.O.1 to M.O.12. He submits that the prosecution established that the deceased was shot dead in the hands of accused on the date of incident with an intention basing on the previous disputes between them. Immediately after the incident, PW.3/Savara Jagadish, elder son of deceased and accused rushed to the room and observed that the accused holding MO.11, i.e., country made gun and his mother lying in pool of blood. Further, PW.3 went to the house of his younger paternal uncle, i.e., PW.4, who is the brother of accused, informed the same, on that PW.4 rushed to the scene of offence and observed that his brother/accused is escaping from the house along with MO.11/country made gun and found accused wife lying dead. PW.4 also stated that he also heard the sound before PW.3 came to him and informed about the incident. Later, the villagers gathered and they also observed the accused escaped from the scene of offence along with MO.11/country made gun and they also stated about the disputes between the accused and deceased during their matrimonial life and panchayats held, and also stated that due to the disputes, the accused shot dead his wife /deceased by name Padma.

The evidence of PW.1 to PW.5, PW.7 to PW.11 connects corroborating that the offence is committed by the accused. PW.3/Savara Jagadish is the elder son, who immediately observed the accused holding MO.11/country made gun and his mother lying in pool of blood, after hearing sound immediately when he went into

SC.54/2022, Date:16-04-2026

VI Addl. District & Sessions Court, Sompeta. - 7 - the house. PW.4 / Savara Sankara Rao, who is the brother of accused also heard sound at the time of incident, immediately PW.3 came and informed him about the incident and on that when he went to the scene of offence, observed that his brother accused is escaping from there, along with MO.11/country made gun and his sister lying dead. PW.5/Savara Buddayya, who also testified that he also heard the sound of firing of country made gun and on that he immediately rushed to the scene of offence and found that the accused escaping from there holding

MO.11/country made gun and further PW.3 informed him about the incident and he stated that he observed that the deceased/Padma causing injury on her chest.

The evidence of PW.3 to PW.5 comes under the purview of section 6 of Indian

Evidence Act, i.e., things formed part of same transaction and their evidence is relevant. Thus all the witnesses corroborated on all material aspects. PW.6 and

PW.12 are the revenue officials and mediators of Ex.P2, Ex.P3, Ex.P4, Ex.P5,

Ex.P6, Ex.P7, Ex.P8 and seizure of M.Os.1 to 12. PW.9 is the photographer, who had taken photographs at the scene of offence as well as at the place of discovery of weapon and other material objects supported to the case of prosecution.

The learned additional public prosecutor further submitted that material evidence shows that the injury found on the deceased could not be possible to have been self-inflicted and the same shows that it was the accused that caused the injury on the chest of the deceased with MO.11/country made gun. The complainant / police seized MO.11/country made gun during the course of discovering it from the place at off-shore reservoir, Pattupuram, where the accused had hidden it, the same connects the accused about his committing offence, murdering his wife, i.e., deceased/Padma.

The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor further argued that the inquest panchayatdars supported the case of the prosecution. PW.16/Medical Officer, who conducted autopsy and categorically stated about the injuries caused to the deceased on her

SC.54/2022, Date:16-04-2026

VI Addl. District & Sessions Court, Sompeta. - 8 - chest and further stated that with the weapon like MO.11, the injuries are sustained by the deceased and opined that cause of the death is due to haemorrhagic shock due to gunshot injury and further issued final opinion that the cause of death is due to haemorrhagic shock associated with cardiorespiratory arrest secondary to gun shot wound and accordingly issued Ex.P9 and Ex.P10. PW.13 to PW.15 are the police officials, who participated in investigation process assisting PW.18, and

PW.17 had spoken about the registration of crime and accompanying along with

PW.18 during the course of investigation. PW.18 and PW.19 are the investigation officers, who had spoken about the investigation done by them.

The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor finally submitted that circumstantial witnesses are corroborated with the evidence of witnesses who has last seen the accused with firearm at the scene of offence. Overwhelming evidences placed by the prosecution, simple discrepancies are bound to occur and no material contradictions or omissions elicited to root out the case of the prosecution. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor ultimately submits that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offences charged against him beyond all reasonable doubt, as such, he prayed the Hon’ble Court to punish the accused as per law.

10). Per Contra the learned defence counsel vehemently submitted that, the burden of proof lies on the prosecution to establish each and every allegation made against the accused. The defense further submits that the very genesis of the prosecution is false by the cross-examination of the material prosecution witnesses

PWs.1 to 5, PWs.7 to 11. The witnesses PW.12 to 19 who are official witnesses, they are not direct eye witnesses to the incident and the entire case rests on circumstantial evidence.

SC.54/2022, Date:16-04-2026

VI Addl. District & Sessions Court, Sompeta. - 9 -

The learned defence counsel further argued that when a case rests on circumstantial evidence, even a minute link of the chain of the circumstances is to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt, which constantly point out the guilt of the accused, but nothing else. The learned defence counsel submitted that there is no whisper with regard to the demand of money by the accused and harassment of his wife/deceased other than stating that panchayats held to solve the disputes occurred in between the accused and his wife/deceased. The learned defence counsel further argued that during the cross examination of PW.6 who is the inquestdar pnachanama witness as well as the scribe of Ex.P3 (inquest report) testified in his cross examination that he did not mention that the northern side of scene of offence house is bounded by the house of Savara Veeranna, which is marked as Exhibit D.1 and argues that the witness did not went to the scene of offence. Further argued that Ex.D2 is marked as PW.8 stated that he did not state

before police in his examination that he held panchayat between accused and

deceased with regard to their disputes. The learned defence counsel further argued that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the alleged chain of circumstances as such as per the settled law, the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt and to be acquitted. The learned defence counsel ultimately submitted that in view of above arguments, he prays the Hon’ble Court to acquit the accused, as the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused.

12).Now, the point arises for determination is :

1. Whether the death of the deceased/padma is homicidal or suicidal?

2. Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offences charged under sections 302, 498-A of Indian Penal Code and sections 25 and 27 of Indian Arms Act, against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt ?

SC.54/2022, Date:16-04-2026

VI Addl. District & Sessions Court, Sompeta. - 10 - 13). POINT:

To convict the accused for the offences punishable under Section 302, 498-A

Indian Penal Codeand sections 25 and 27 of Indian Arms Act 1959. The burden is on the prosecution to prove that the accused harassed his wife subjecting her to cruelty and further used firearm and shooted on her chest with an intention to kill her knowing that his act is sufficient to cause the death of the deceased in ordinary course of commission.

14).Initially, to prove the death of the deceased, by name, Savara Padma, it is required to refer the oral and documentary evidence available on record. In order to prove the guilt, the prosecution got examined P.W’s.1 to 19 and got marked

Ex’s.P1 to P17 and M.O.1 to M.O.12.

15).The prosecution examined the defacto-complainant including his family members, blood relatives and elders from PW.1 to PW.5, PW.7 to PW.12 ie.,

PW.1/Savara Narasimhulu, PW.2./Savara Laxmi, PW.3/Savara Jagadeesh,

PW.4/Savara Sankar Rao, PW.5/Savara Buddayya, PW.7/Savara Rayabari,

PW.8/Savara Nageswar Rao, PW.9/Gavalapu Mahesh, PW.10/Savara

RanagaraolPW.11/Savara Ravikumar, PW.12/Batchu Annaji Rao and also examined PW.6/Nivagam Narayana Rao who acted as mediator during the course of investigation, PW.16/Dr. K.Bala krishna who issued PM report and opinion to the cause of the death and PW.13/D.Chinnammadu, PW.14/B.Madhusudhanrao,

PW.15/S.Adinarayana, PW.17/V.Sandeep Kumar, PW.18/R.Ravi Prasad, and

PW.19/M.Vinod Babu are the police officials who are present during the course of investigation in this case are also examined.

16)The prosecution examined the Defacto complainant as PW.1/Savara

Narasimhulu who lodged a report before PW.17/SI of police. PW.1 during the course of evidence before court he testified that the deceased Padma is his elder

SC.54/2022, Date:16-04-2026

VI Addl. District & Sessions Court, Sompeta. - 11 - sister, she got married 17 years back with the accused i.e., Savara Jaggarao and they were blessed with two male sons i.e., PW.3/S.Jagadeesh and

LW.10/S.Avinash. The PW.1 further testified in his evidence that the accused addicted to bad vices and started harassing his sister/the deceased suspecting her fidelity and on two or three occasions the deceased came to her parents home, and when the matter placed before elders the accused took her back to the matrimonial fold assuring that he will look after well his wife/the deceased and their children.

Further he testified that the accused continued his harassment by beating her and also threatening the deceased that he will kill her. On 16.10.2021 at about 4.30 PM he received a call from the deceased mobile, PW.3 informed the PW.1 that his father accused killed her mother using country made gun, on which immediately he along with his parents and his sister proceeded to Bharanikota village to the house of accused and found his sister/Savara Padma dead lying in pool of blood in her house. PW.1 also testified that he found blood injury wound on the chest of the deceased. He stated that he gave Ex.P1/report to PW.17/SI of police and further he stated that he also present during the course of inquest and gave statement

before learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class.

During the cross-examination by learned counsel for accused, PW.1 reiterated the contents of his chief examination and denied the suggestions that he is deposing false evidence in order to fix his brother-in-law/accused in this case and also denied for the suggestion that since the date of marriage till the date of death, the accused and deceased lived happily without any disputes. The learned counsel for defence nothing was elicited from the evidence of PW.1 which is useful for the accused.

17)PW.2/Savara Laxmi who testified that she know the accused, who is the husband of her sister/Padma and deposed that her sister got married 17 years back with accused/Savara Jaggarao and they both were blessed with two male children,

SC.54/2022, Date:16-04-2026

VI Addl. District & Sessions Court, Sompeta. - 12 - after some time the accused used to harass her sister ie., the deceased Padma suspecting her fidelity, further deposed that her sister used to come to her matrimonial home whenever the accused beat her and threatened her to kill, at that time her brother/PW.1, her parents with the help of village elders pacified the matter and the accused used to take her back to the matrimonial life by assuring them that he will look her the deceased sister well. She also testified that on 16-10-2021 at about 04.30 p.m, PW.1 informed her that PW.3 called through her sister’s Padma mobile and informed that the accused killed her sister, Padma, by using country made gun causing injuries on her chest. She also stated that her brother PW.1 gave report and on that she was examined by the complainant police and she also further deposed that she is present at the time of inquest over the deceased body and at that time all the panchayatdars opined the deceased/Padma died due to the firearm used by the accused against the deceased.

During cross-examination, she stated that along with PW.1 and her parents reached to the house of accused at 07.00 p.m on the date of incident. She denied the suggestion that her sister and the accused are not having any disputes, and also no panchayats were held before village elders with regard to the disputes.

She further deposed that her sister informed to her parents that the accused is threatening to kill her. She further denied the suggestion that the accused never threatened or harassed her sister padma and she is deposing false evidence to support the evidence of PW.1. She also denied for the suggestion that everyone of Bharanikota village will possess country made gun to secure their crops from wild animals.

18).PW.3/Savara Jagadeesh testified that the deceased and accused in this case are his parents, he testified that his parents used to quarrel with each other, his mother was killed by his father using country made gun on 16.10.2021, during that time he is going to bath room and on hearing sound in side from his house, he

SC.54/2022, Date:16-04-2026

VI Addl. District & Sessions Court, Sompeta. - 13 - immediately rushed into the house and saw his mother dead causing injuries on her chest. PW.3 testified that at the time he saw his father /accused holding a country made gun. Immediately he informed about the incident to PW.4 who is younger paternal father residing adjacent to their house. Immediately PW.4, PW.5 and LW.8 came to his house, at that time the witness observed that the accused leaving the scene of offence holding country made gun. PW.3 testified that further he informed to PW.1/Savara Narasimhulu and later he came to their house along with his grandparents and maternal aunt.

During cross-examination, he stated that he is about to go to bathroom at the time of hearing sound, at about 04.30 p.m, on the date of incident and immediately he went into the room of his house and after seeing his mother lying in pool of blood and his father accused holding country made gun, immediately he rushed to

PW.4 house and informed him about the incident. Witness also testified that police examined him and he also stated the harassment of the accused against her mother and even the witness also stated that the prior incidents of disputes between his parents. He denied the suggestion that the accused did not addicted to drink alcohol and he is deposing false evidence.

19)PW.4/Savara Sankar Rao testified that they are four brothers to their parents and the accused is one of his brother by name Jaggarao and his wife is Padma/ deceased. Further the witness testified that, the accused used to harass his wife padma suspecting her fidelity and threaten to kill her. Witness also stated that on all the occasion of threatening the deceased used to leave the matrimonial home to their parents home and further his brother the accused get back her assuring that he will look after her well before the panchayats held with elders. He further testified that he heard sound at about 4.30 PM on the date of incident and further immediately PW.3 came and informed him about the incident and on that he immediately proceeded to scene of offence, and observed that accused escaping

SC.54/2022, Date:16-04-2026

VI Addl. District & Sessions Court, Sompeta. - 14 - from scene of offence holding the country made gun. He further stated that he observed the deceased/Padma was lying in pool of blood in her house. Witness identified the firearm country made gun in the open court.

During the cross examination of PW.4 he reiterated the contents of his chief examination and further deposed that prior to one month of the incident the accused came in intoxicant state and quarreled with his wife Padma, then she along with her children went away to her parents house and the accused get back his wife and children after 15 days. The witness testified that the offence occurred in the 10th month but he cannot say the exact date and further denied all the suggestions put to him by the accused counsel, and also denied for the suggestion that he is deposing false evidence against the accused, as he is having disputes with the accused with regard to property. The learned counsel for defence nothing was elicited from the evidence of PW.4 which is useful for the accused.

20).PW.5/Savara Buddayya testified that he know the accused as well as his wife, he stated that the accused used to pickup quarrel with his wife when he is in intoxicant state and at that time his wife used to leave matrimonial home to her parents house and further the accused get back her to his matrimonial fold after assuring her parents and elders at the panchayats held thereon. Witness testified that the deceased died on Saturday in 10th month four years back. He testified that he heard firing of country made gun and immediately while he was going to the scene of offence found the accused leaving from there holding gun and observed the wife of accused died causing injury on her chest. Witness identified the country made gun and stated that police examined him.

During the cross-examination, he reiterated the contents of his chief examination and testified that on the date of incident he was present at his house and also observed that the accused leaving through front way of his house and denied for the suggestions that he does not know the reasons for disputes in

SC.54/2022, Date:16-04-2026

VI Addl. District & Sessions Court, Sompeta. - 15 - between the deceased and accused and he is deposing false evidence having grudge on the accused though the accused is no way concerned with this case.

21).PW.6/Nivagana Narayana Rao, VRO of Bharanikota Village testified that on 17.10.2021 he received call from PW.18 and on that he went to scene of offence at the accused house along with LW.17/Perumalla Kurmayya. There they observed the deceased was shot dead causing injury over her chest, the witness testified that the clues team obtained photographs at the scene of offence and collected incriminating material at the scene of offence and the investigating team observed and collected all incriminating material under the cover of Ex.P2 which is drafted by him and attested by him and LW.17. Witness testified that in his presence inquest is held over the deceased body by PW.18 and an Ex.P.3/inquest report is drafted by him wherein all panchayatdars opined that the accused killed his wife padma suspecting her fidelity. Further the witness testified that the deceased body shifted to CHC, Pathapatnam and there the complainant police PW.18 received deceased clothes and belongs under the cover of Ex.P.4 which was drafted by PW.6 witness and he attested along with others. Witness further testified that on 18.10.2021 at about 7.AM. the accused appeared before him while he was at Sachivalayam and the accused stated about the offence committed by him and all of his statement was drafted under Ex.P5 obtaining the accused signature and further the accused was produced before SHO under Ex.P6 report along with Ex.P5, and further PW.6 gave a statement under 164 CrPC before Hon’ble JMFC, Palasa.

During cross examination of PW.6 by the learned counsel for accused the witness stated that he along with LW.17/Kurmayya acted as mediator and on the request of PW.18 they went to scene of offence and further stated that they observed the deceased and scene of offence and got prepared Ex.P.2/scene of offence, and also present during the course of inquest and preparation of

SC.54/2022, Date:16-04-2026

VI Addl. District & Sessions Court, Sompeta. - 16 -

Ex.P3/inquest report, Ex.P4/Mediators report at the time of seizure of deceased belongs at CHC, Ex.P.5/statement given by the accused before him and Ex.P.6 is the report given to the police at the time of surrendering the accused. His evidence reveals the investigation procedure after occurrence of incident. The chief and cross examination of PW.6 discloses about the investigation process where the complainant collected incriminating material in the presence of mediator and examined the witnesses with regard to the offence. He denied to the suggestions that he did not accompanied with the complainant police at the scene of offence and observed the place of offence and deceased and drafted Ex.P2 on the instructions of P.W.18, as well as he went to CHC and drafted Ex.P3, denied the suggestion that he did not present in his office on 18.10.2021 and that accused never surrendered before him and denied for the suggestion that the accused along with his friend Veeranna never hunted the wild animals and he is deposing false evidence. Though Ex.D1 is marked with regard to the northern side property of the scene of offence house, it is the minor discrepancy wherein the prosecution case is not affected. The counsel for the accused did not cause or shake the witness of prosecution and the evidence of PW.6 is more reliable to prove the chain of circumstances and the accused for counsel failed to disprove the chain of circumstances.

22).PW.7/Savara Rayabari identified the accused who stood in the court hall and testified that the accused is husband of her niece Padma/deceased. The witness testified that the accused harassed the deceased , beat the deceased on all occasions when he is in intoxicant state, at that time she left the matrimonial home to her parents house and further the accused get back her by talking with her in-laws in the presence of elders. Witness testified that after receiving information about the incident she accompanied with PW.1,LW.2 and LW.3 along with other

SC.54/2022, Date:16-04-2026

VI Addl. District & Sessions Court, Sompeta. - 17 - villagers and went to Bharanikota Village and there she observed her niece Padma died.

During her cross examination by the learned counsel for accused, witness stated that on the date of incident she went to Bharanikota village in an auto. She also testified that she also present in panchayats held in their village with regard to the disputes between the accused and the deceased and also stated names of elders who participated in panchayats. She denied for the suggestions that panchayats did not held and the accused did not harassed the deceased. Witness also testified that she observed injury on the chest of deceased body and denied for the suggestion that police never examined her.

23).PW.8/Savara Nagaswara Rao testified that he know the accused and identified him in the court hall. He stated that he acted as elder to pacify the disputes held at the village. Once the dispute of the deceased is placed before them stating that the accused is harassing his wife Padma in intoxicant state and on that, all members in pachayat admonished the accused to lookafter her wellbeing, and on that the accused took her back to his matrimonial home. Later, he came to know that the accused killed his wife using country made gun.

During cross-examination, witness denied all suggestions put to him by the learned counsel for the accused and testimony of witness is no way useful in favour of accused. Though Ex.D2 is marked with regard to the mentioning of his participation in panchayat held in between the accused and deceased it does not affect the prosecution case and is not useful to the accused to his case.

24).PW.9/Gavalapu Mahesh testified that he is the photographer and since 11 years he is working as photographer. On 17.10.2021, PW.18 requested him to come to scene of offence at Bharanikota village and on his instructions he

SC.54/2022, Date:16-04-2026

VI Addl. District & Sessions Court, Sompeta. - 18 - photographed and videographed the scene of offence and on the next day, he went to Pattupuram village to the place off-shore reservoir and photographed the procedure of discovery of weapon and other material objects by PW.18 . He stated that he handed-over the hard copies of photos, and video by way of CD.

During the cross-examination by the learned counsel for the accused, the witness reiterated the contents of chief examination and denied for the suggestion that the police never called him for obtaining photographs and deposing false evidence on the instructions of police.

25). PW.10/Savara Ranaga Rao testified that the accused is also the resident of his village, he know the wife of accused also and they were blessed with two children. He testified that the accused is habituated consuming alcohol and harassed the deceased suspecting her fidelity. He also stated that the deceased used to leave to her parents house and the accused used to get back her to the matrimonial fold after assuring that he will look after his wife well. The witness stated that for about three times, they held panchayats at the in-laws house of the accused, but he accused did not mend his behavior and on 16-10-2021, the accused shot dead his wife with country made gun. The witness also stated that after knowing the incident, he visited the scene of offence and also present at the time of inquest and all the panchayatdars opined that the deceased died in the hands of accused as he shooted with country made gun. He also stated that he attested Ex.P3/Inquest report.

During the cross-examination by the counsel for accused, nothing was elicited from the evidence which is useful for accused. Witness stated that the

Bharanikota village is an agency area and there is a chance of presence of wild animals, as such previously people possess guns to protect them. He denied the suggestions put to him that no panchayats were held in his presence and deposing false evidence.

SC.54/2022, Date:16-04-2026

VI Addl. District & Sessions Court, Sompeta. - 19 - 26).PW.11/ Savara Ravi Kumar, testified that the accused is the resident of his village, he knows the deceased and they were blessed with two children. He submitted that the accused is having habit of drinking alcohol and harassed his wife suspecting her fidelity and for about one or two times, he attended for panchayats held to pacify the dispute between the accused and the deceased. He also stated that the accused never mend his behaviour and continued his act of harassing his wife padma. He further submitted that he came to know that on 16.10.2021, the accused killed his wife shooting her on chest with country made gun and he immediately went to the scene of offence and observed the deceased was shot dead. He testified that he also present during the course of inquest and attested on Ex.P3/inquest report.

During the cross-examination, he testified that Ex.P3 is prepared at the house of accused and along with him, PW.10 also present and he also testified that at the request of deceased, Savara Padma, they participated in panchayats held at

Tentulagam village. He denied for the suggestions put to him that he did not participated in panchayats.

27).PW.12/Batchu Annaji Rao testified that he is working as Village Revenue officer for Peddapadmapuram village. On 18-10-2021, at about 08.00 a,m, he received a call from his Tahsildar, instructing him to attend before Meliaputti Police station with regard to the crime and on that he along with LW.23/Kurella Samuel proceeded to Meliaputti P.S and there in PS they found the accused and in their presence along with PW.18, the accused disclosed his details and narrated the disputes with his wife and the panchayats held on all occasions, when his wife went to her parents house and on 16-10-2021, afternoon the accused returned to his home in drunken state and got quarreled with his wife and at 04.00 p.m, he shot dead his wife with country made gun, which is in his house. The witness testified

SC.54/2022, Date:16-04-2026

VI Addl. District & Sessions Court, Sompeta. - 20 - that the accused stated that the said gun belongs Savara Veerayya used to hunt wild animals. Witness also stated that the accused stated before them that he got experience to use contry made gun and after the death of Savara Veeranna, he kept the said country made gun with him. After committing the offence and as his elder son raised cries, afraiding that all the villagers will gather, and in fear, he went away along with the country made gun towards Pattupuram village and there at the place of off-shore reservoir, the accused stated that he hidden the weapon in the bushes. Further, the accused stated that he spent the whole night at that place and on the next day surrendered before PW.6/Nivagana Narayana Rao. Further, PW.6 recorded the statement of accused and produced him before Meliaputti Police.

Witness testified that entire statements of accused is recorded under the cover of

Ex.P7 which was attested by him as well as LW.23. Witness identified the accused

in the court hall. Witness further stated that he accompanied along with PW.18 in

the process of discovery of the weapon and other material objects, where the accused stated to be hidden at off-shore reservoir at Pattupuram village. There in the presence of them, PW.18 discovered and recovered the material objects, under cover of Ex.P9, witness identified the MO.11/country made gun and blue colour shirt and the signature on the identification slips.

During the cross-examination by the learned counsel for accused, the witness stated that on the instructions of his Tahsildar, he appeared before the

Meliaputti P.S and stated that the accused stated before him that due to not working for his livelihood he addicted to consuming alcohol, disputes occurred in between him and his wife and he denied to the suggestions made to him that he did not went to the police station and the accused never gave statement before him and further the police obtained his signature on Ex.P8 and also denied the suggestion that the police never seized the MO.11/Country made gun in his presence. His evidence reveals the investigation procedure after occurrence of incident and the evidence discloses about the investigation process wherethe

SC.54/2022, Date:16-04-2026

VI Addl. District & Sessions Court, Sompeta. - 21 - complainant collected the incriminating material in the presence of mediator and examination of witnesses with regard to the offence. The counsel for the accused did not cause or shake the evidence of witness and the testimony is more reliable to prove the chain of circumstances of the case.

28).PW.13/D.Chinnammadu testified that she is working as woman constable. On 17.10.2021, at 10.00 a.m, she reached to the house of accused at

Bharanikota along with PW.18. She testified that she found a hole injury on the chest of the deceased as well as the backside of body of deceased. She further stated that she escorted the deceased body to CHC.Pathapatnam, for the purpose of autopsy, there, the Medical Officer handed-over the belongsing of the deceased and they were handed-over to the family members of the deceased. She stated that after completion of autopsy, the deceased body was handed-over to family members of the deceased.

During cross-examination, the witness denied the suggestion that she did not escort the deceased body to CHC, Pathapatnam and she is deposing false evidence on the instructions of PW.18.

29).PW.14/D.Madhusudana Rao stated that he is working as Police constable and on 05-11-2021, PW.18 handed- him a cardboard box to report before

SDPO, Palakonda and from there, he handed-over the box at RFSL,

Visakhapatnam under acknowledgment.

During cross-examination, he deposed the way and manner he proceeded to

RFSL and handed-over the card board box. He denied for the suggestion that he did not took any cardboard box to RFSL, Visakhapatnam and he did not obtain any receipt from them and he is deposing false evidence.

SC.54/2022, Date:16-04-2026

VI Addl. District & Sessions Court, Sompeta. - 22 - 27).PW.15/S.Adinarayana testified that he is working as constable on 14- 11-2021, PW.18 handed-over a country made gun weapon along with a box and asked him to appear before SDPO, Palakonda and on the next day morning, he reached to SDPO Office, Palakonda and from there, on 16-11-2021, he handed- over the same under cover of receipt, at RFSL, Mangalagiri.

During cross-examination, he deposed the way and manner he proceeded to RFSL and handed-over the card board box. He denied for the suggestion that he did not took any cardboard box to RFSL, Mangalagiri and he did not obtain any receipt from them and he is deposing false evidence.

28).PW.16/K.Balakrishna testified that he is working as Civil Assistant

Surgeon and on 17-10-2021, he received a requisition from PW.18/Inspector of

Police to conduct autopsy over the deceased body and on his examination, he observed the following external injuries, as noted below :

1)A Wound measuring 2x2 cms present on the anterior abnormal wall 4 cm below the side xiphoid process.

2).Around the entry wound it 12x12 cms area of charing is observed.

3).Observed trachea congested and continued along the tract of trachea 4).The depth of the wound shows black and burning.

5) I observed the exit of the wound is situated on the posterior aspect of the back lower part of the chest, measuring 1.5x1.5 cm surrounding with multiple scatted wound measured about 0.2 cms, the total area of the exit wound is 3.1x3.1 cm. observed contusion of lungs in the chest area.

6).The paritoneal cavity is ruptured and filled with blood and multiple clots, stomach and intestinal loops are lacerated, liver along with

SC.54/2022, Date:16-04-2026

VI Addl. District & Sessions Court, Sompeta. - 23 - pancreas shows multiple lacerations, observed spleen contused and lacerated.

8).Observed both kidney contused parirenal haemmorhage, congested adrenal are seen.

9).Fracture of vertebral bodies seen in T-11 to L-2, spinal cord is intact.

Further witness stated that he collected visra along with burnt skin for the purpose of forensic test and issued Ex.P9/opinion pending RFSL Report that the cause of the death of deceased appeared to have died due to haemorrhagic shock due to gunshot injury. He testified that further after receiving RFSL Reports, he issued Ex.P10/Final opinion on 16-09-2022, opined that cause of the death is haemorragic shock associated with cardiorespiratory arrest, secondary to gunshot wound.

During cross-examination, witness testified that the gun was used from shortest distance and also stated that basing on distance of firing, can say the use of type of gun and he categorically stated that the wounds are caused by the gun as he did not observed dirty colour around the wound and the weapon used is not licensed. He further denied for the suggestions put by the learned counsel for accused that he did not find any material of the gun on the wound.

29).PW.17/V.Sandeep Kumar, who is working as S.I of Police and in his chief-examination, he stated that on 16-10-2021, while he present at Meliaplutti

Police station, PW.1 lodged Ex.P1/report and basing on the report, he registered a case, Ex.P11/FIR in Cr.No.109/2021 under sections 302, 498-A of IPC and sections 25 and 27 of Indian Arms Act, 1959 against the accused. Later, he submitted the original FIR to the Hon’ble JMFC, Tekkali and copies to the concerned authorities. Being grave offence, he informed to PW.18/Inspector of

Police, Pathapatnam.

SC.54/2022, Date:16-04-2026

VI Addl. District & Sessions Court, Sompeta. - 24 -

During cross-examination, he categorically stated that PW.1 himself came to police station and lodged Ex.P1/report and he denied for the suggestion that he obtained the signature of PW.1 on empty white paper and the accused is no way related to this case.

30).PW.18/R.Raviprasad, Inspector of Police, Pathapatnam Circle, in his

Chief examination stated that on 16.10.2021, PW.17/SIof police informed him about the offence, immediately he instructed to safe guard the scene of offence and after informing to his higher authorities and clues team he proceeded to Meliaputti PS and there he found the defacto-complainant/Savara Narasimhulu examined him and recorded his statement. He further testified that on 17.10.2021 at about 6.00 a.m secured the presence of PW.6/Nivagana Narayana Rao and LW.17/Perumalla

Kurmayya (mediators) and staff proceeded to scene of offence and observed the scene in the presence of mediators with the assistance of clues team and got prepared Ex.P12/rough sketch, scene observation report, photographed the scene of offence collected the samples of blood and controlled swabs, silver colour powder, Black colour powder, Black colour crystalline powder, steel balls and metal balls with the help of clues team, also seized crackers, blood stained steel balls, smoke impact swabs from the area of the wound at chest of deceased, mustard yellow coloured shirt pieces MO.1 to MO.9 under the cover of Ex.P2/scene observation report by obtaining photographs of the entire scene under cover of

Ex.P13. Later, he secured the presence of witnesses, LW.2, LW.3 and PW.2 and

PW.3 examined them and recorded their section 161 Cr.P.C statements. Further

PW.18/Inspector of police conducted inquest over the deceased body in the presence of blood relatives, mediators and examined them and recorded section 161 Cr.P.C. statements of PW.4, PW.5 and LW.8. He stated that the deceased body is shifted for autopsy to CHC, Pathapatnam and there the clothes of the deceased were received under the cover of mediator report. On 18.10.2021 at

SC.54/2022, Date:16-04-2026

VI Addl. District & Sessions Court, Sompeta. - 25 - about 9.00 a.m PW.6 came to Meliaputti Police station along with accused and his confessional statement, on that he recorded the confessional statement of accused, basing on the statement he along with his staff and mediators proceeded to

Pattupuram Off-shore reservoir and discovered the MO.11/weapon country made gun and MO.12/shirt of the accused under the cover of seizure report. He further stated that the accused was sent for judicial remand and on 19.10.2021 he proceeded to Bharanikota village along with PW.17 to the house of accused secured the presence of PW.10/Savara Ranga Rao examined him and recorded his section 161 Cr.P.C statement. He further stated that he proceeded to

Thenthulagam village secured the presence of LW.11, LW.12, LW.14, PW.7, PW.8 and PW.9 examined them and recorded their section 161 Cr.P.C statements. He testified that on 31.10.2021, he received Ex.P9/preliminary PM report and on 05.11.2021 forwarded material objects to RFSL, Visakhapatnam through due process and further handed over the case diary to PW.19.

During the cross-examination, he reiterated the contents of his chief examination that he denied for the suggestion that he did not went to the crime scene and Ex.P2 is prepared at police station, he denied for the suggestion that the accused is no way concerned with the case and PW.9 did not take photographs on his instructions and further he did not send any requisition letters for mediators, for the purpose of investigation and deposing false evidence.

31).PW.19/M.Vinod Babu, Inspector of Police testified that on 11.11.2021 he received CD file from his predecessor PW.18 and after verification of investigation done by him, he continued investigation on 14.11.2021 he forwarded the material objects collected by PW.18 to RFSL through due process, on 16.12.2021, he produced PW.1, LW.2 and PW.6 before Hon’ble JFCM for the purpose of recording their section 164 Cr.P.C. statements. On 12.01.2022 and 14.01.2022, he received reports from RFSL, received verification report from

SC.54/2022, Date:16-04-2026

VI Addl. District & Sessions Court, Sompeta. - 26 -

Tahsildar, Meliaputti with regard to the possessing of license of country made gun and after obtaining permission for prosecuting the accused as he used fire arm and after obtaining all relevant documents, he filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under sections 302, 498-A

APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE

32). In the present case, it is made clear that there is no direct eye witness and the case is squarely banks on the circumstantial evidence so it is apt to look at the settled law about the same.

In the case of Musheer Khan @ Badshah Khan V. State of Madhya

Pradesh 2010 (1) ALD (Crl.) 813 (Supreme Court), their lordships of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court held about the circumstantial evidence as follows at para 46 to 48 which are extracted below for the ready reference:

Para:46 In a case of circumstantial evidence, one must look for complete chain

of circumstances and not on snapped and scattered links which do not make a completed sequence.

Para:47 This Court finds that this case is entirely based on circumstantial

evidence. While appreciating circumstantial evidence, the Court must adopt a cautious approach as circumstantial evidence is “inferential evidence” and proof in such a case is derivable by inference from circumstances.

Para:48 P roof does not mean rigid mathematical” formula since “that is

impossible”. However, proof must mean such evidence as would induce a reasonable mean to come to a definite conclusion.

Circumstantial evidence, on the other hand, has been compared by

SC.54/2022, Date:16-04-2026

VI Addl. District & Sessions Court, Sompeta. - 27 -

Lord Coleridge “like a gossamer thread, light and as unsubstantial as the air itself and may vanish with the merest of touches”. Also observed that such evidence may be strong in parts but it may also leave great gaps and rents through which the accused may escape.

Therefore, certain rules have been judicially evolved for appreciation of circumstantial evidence.

33)Keeping in view of the above settled propositions oflaw of the circumstantial evidence now let us look at and appreciate/scrutinize the evidence of let in by prosecution. On perusal of record and from the above evidence, it appears that there is no dispute that the deceased Savara Padma died on 16.10.2021 in her house at Bharanikota village. The question that arises is whether the death of the deceased Savara Padma was homicidal due to injuries caused to her or of natural death. Report of PW1 is marked as Exhibit P1 and FIR is marked as Exhibit P.11 in which, PW.1 is the brother of the deceased who gave a report to the police upon his acknowledgment of knowing the incident. His evidence is hearsay evidence, testified what he heard about the incident through his nephew PW.3, though immediately he rushed into the house after hearing the sound of firing firearm and observed the accused holding it at the deceased body, he is not the eye witness to the incident, with his testimony the death of deceased cannot be completely proved. PW.2 to PW.5, PW6 to PW8, and PW10 to PW.11 are the witnesses who testified about the incidents before occurrence of this offence, PW.9 is the photographer who testified graphed the scene of offence and the discovery of weapon procedure. PW.6 is mediator witness who present at the time of scene observation report/Ex.P2, inquest report/Ex.P3, Mediators Report/Ex.P4, recorded the statement of the accused when he surrendered before him, and Ex.P6 report of

PW.6/VRO gave to PW.17 and the evidence of PW.6 is also cannot be only basis to prove the guilt of the accused. PW.12 is also another mediator witness and other witnesses are official witness who testified about the after incident procedure.

SC.54/2022, Date:16-04-2026

VI Addl. District & Sessions Court, Sompeta. - 28 -

As per the inquest report under Ex.P3, the deceased died due to ‘gunshot injury on her chest .”

Now on perusal of the evidence of PW.16 Dr. K Bala Krishna he testified that observed nine external injuries on and surrounding the wound at the chest of the deceased body and as per the postmortem report under Ex.P9 & final opinion under Ex. P.10 the deceased death was due to ‘haemorrhagic shock associated with cardiorespiratory arrest secondary to gunshot wound’. These oral and documentary evidence of the witnesses clearly establishes that the death of Savara

Padma was homicidal due to wound and injuries.

34).Now to see whether the prosecution has proved the circumstances that the cause of death of Savara Padma was due to the injuries caused on her chest by the accused, it has to be seen that as to how far is that the Prosecution could be able to bring home the guilt of the accused . To derive the conclusion, it is apt to re-consider the main parts of testimonies of respective prosecution witnesses.

The prosecution firstly relied on the evidence of P.Ws.1 to PW.4 and PW.7 who are closed blood relatives of the deceased being brother, Sister, Son, and brother in law of deceased. PW5, PW.7 to PW.12 are the independent witnesses, few are neighbors of the deceased at her maternal home village Bharanikota and

Paternal home at Tenthulugam village.

35).The counsel for the accused though not attacked the testimony of PWs.1 to

PW.4 on the ground of relationship and interested, it is incumbent upon this

Court to scrutinize the evidence of the blood related interested witnesses in the back drop of the settled proposition of law about the evidentiary value of such type of witnesses. So, at glance of the settled law about the evidentiary value of the blood related interest witnesses, before scrutinizing the evidence

SC.54/2022, Date:16-04-2026

VI Addl. District & Sessions Court, Sompeta. - 29 - of P.Ws.1 to 4 to see whether same can be relied upon in the back drop of the settled proposition of law with the facts and circumstances of the case.

(1)Their lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Gali

Venkataiah Vs. State of A.P. 2008 (1) ALD (Crl.) 157 (SC) about the evidentiary value of interested/related/partisan witness held that:

“Relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a witness. It is more often than not that the relation would not conceal actual culprit and make allegations against the innocent person. Foundation has to be laid if plea of false implication made. In such cases, the Court has to adopt a careful approach and analyze evidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible.” (2)In the case of State of U.P. Vs. Summandas, reported in AIR 1972 Supreme

Court Page.677, it was held that:

“in a murder trail, the relationship of the prosecution witnesses to the deceased is not sufficient ground for discrediting their testimony, unless a motive is alleged and proved against them to spare the real assailants and falsely involve another person in place of the assailant.” (3)The Hon’ble A.P. High Court in the case of Golla Peramasani Sivaiah @

Sivanna and others Vs. State of A.P. reported 2007 (1) A.L.D. (Criminal) 255

A.P. (Division Bench) at the first 14 lines of Para:27 reiterated the settled proposition of law about the evidentiary value of partisan witnesses as follows:

“The law is well settled that the evidence of partisan witnesses cannot be brushed aside on the ground that it is not corroborated by independent witnesses and that the conviction can be based on the uncorroborated testimony of partisan witnesses depending upon the circumstances of each

SC.54/2022, Date:16-04-2026

VI Addl. District & Sessions Court, Sompeta. - 30 - case, provided that their evidence is reliable and trustworthy. It is also well settled that the evidence of partisan witnesses has to be scrutinized carefully with more than ordinary care and caution with reference to the probabilities, medical evidence and other circumstances of each case”.

36. Now when we look into the testimonies of witnesses from PW.1 to 5 and

PW8 to 11

PW.1/Savara Narasimhulu is the defacto complainant and brother of the deceased lodged a report before PW.17/SI of police, during his testimony

before court he testified that the deceased Padma is his elder sister, she got

married 17 years back with the accused and they were blessed with two male sons i.e., PW.3/S.Jagadeesh and LW.10/S.Avinash. He also testified that the accused addicted to bad vices and started harassing his sister/Padma (deceased) suspecting her fidelity and the deceased used to come to parents home, and when the matter placed before elders the accused took her back to his matrimonial fold assuring that he will look after well his wife/the deceased and their children. Further the defacto complainat stated that the accused continued his harassment by beating her threatening that he will kill her. He deposed that on 16.10.2021 at about 4.30 PM he received a call from

PW.3 his nephew informed him that his father killed her mother using country made gun through the deceased mobile, immediately the defacto complainant along with his parents and his younger sister proceeded to

Bharanikota village to the house of accused and found his elder sister/Savara

Padma dead lying in pool of blood in their house. He also testified that he found blood injury wound on her chest. He stated that he gave Ex.P1/report to PW.17/SI of police and further he stated that he also present during the

SC.54/2022, Date:16-04-2026

VI Addl. District & Sessions Court, Sompeta. - 31 - course of inquest and gave statement before learned Judicial Magistrate of

First Class.

PW.2/Savara Laxmi who testified that the accused is the husband of her sister/Padma and deposed that her sister got married 17 years back with accused and they both were blessed with two male children, further the accused used to harass her sister ie, the deceased Padma suspecting her fidelity, further deposed that her sister used to left her matrimonial home to the paternal home whenever the accused beat her threatening her to kill, at that time her brother/PW.1, and her parents with the help of village elders pacified the matter and then the accused used to take his wife back to the matrimonial life. She also testified that on 16-10-2021 at about 04.30 p.m, her brother PW.1 informed her that PW.3 son of her sister called through her sister’s Padma mobile and informed that accused killed her sister, Padma, by using country made gun causing injuries on her chest. She also stated that her brother PW.1 gave report and she also further deposed that she is present at the time of inquest over the deceased body and at that time all the panchayatdars opined the deceased/Padma died due to the firing of firearm against the deceased by the accused.

PW.3/Savara Jagadeesh who is the son of the deceased and accused testified that his parents used to quarrel with each other, his mother was killed by his father using country made gun on 16.10.2021, he stated that at that time he is going to bath room and on hearing sound from inside of his house, he immediately rushed into the house and saw his mother dead causing injuries on her chest. PW.3 testified that at the time he saw his father holding a country made gun. Immediately, he informed about the incident to

PW.4 who is younger paternal father residing to their house. Immediately,

SC.54/2022, Date:16-04-2026

VI Addl. District & Sessions Court, Sompeta. - 32 -

PW.4, PW.5 and LW.8 came to his house, at that time PW.3 observed that the his father leaving the scene of offence holding country made gun., he also testified that further he informed to PW.1/Savara Narasimhulu who is his uncle and later he came to their house along with his grandparents and maternal aunt.

PW.4/Savara Sankar Rao who is the brother of the accused testified that they are four brothers to their parents and the accused is one of his brother by name Jaggarao and his wife is Padma/ deceased. Further he stated that the accused used to harass his wife padma suspecting her fidelity and threaten to kill her. He also stated that on all the occasions of threatening the deceased used to leave the matrimonial home to her parents home and further his brother/accused get back her assuring that he will look after her well panchayats held with elders. He further stated that he heard sound at about 4.30 PM on the date of incident and further immediately PW.3 came and informed him about the incident and on that he immediately proceeded to scene of offence and observed that accused is escaping from scene of offence holding the weapon MO.11 country made gun. He further stated that the he observed the deceased/Padma was lying in pool of blood in her house and also identified MO.11 in the open court.

37).PW.5/Savara Buddayya testified that he know the accused as well as his wife, he stated that the accused used to pickup quarrel with his wife when he is in intoxicant state and at that time his wife used to leave matrimonial home to her parents house and further the accused get back her after panchayats held thereon with elders. Witness testified that the deceased died on

Saturday in the 10th month four years back. He testified that he heard firing

SC.54/2022, Date:16-04-2026

VI Addl. District & Sessions Court, Sompeta. - 33 - sound of a gun and immediately while he was going to the scene of offence found the deceased leaving from his house holding gun and observed the wife of accused died causing injury on her chest. He identified the country made gun and stated that police examined him.

38). PW.7/Savara Rayabari identified testified that the accused is husband of her niece Padma/deceased. The witness stated that the accused harassed the deceased, beat the deceased on all occasions when he consumed alcohol, at that time she left the matrimonial home to her parents house and further the accused get back her by talking with her in-laws in the presence of elders. Witness testified that after receiving information about the incident she accompanied with PW.1,LW.2 and LW.3 along with other villagers to

Bharanikota Village and there she observed her niece Padma died.

39). PW.8/Savara Nagaswara Rao testified that he know the accused and identified him in the court hall. He stated that he acted as elder to pacify the disputes held in their village. Once the dispute of the deceased is placed

before their elders stating that the accused is harassing his wife Padma in

intoxicant state and on that, all members in pachayat admonished the accused to look after her well, and on that the accused took her back to his matrimonial home. Later, he came to know that the accused killed his wife using country made gun.

40).PW.9/Gavalapu Mahesh testified that he is the photographer and since 11 years he is working as photographer. On 17.10.2021, PW.18 requested him to take photos at the scene of offence at Bharanikota village and on the next day, he went to Pattupuram village to the place off-shore reservoir and photographed the procedure of discovery of weapon and other material

SC.54/2022, Date:16-04-2026

VI Addl. District & Sessions Court, Sompeta. - 34 - objects by PW.18 . He stated that he handed-over the hard copies of photos, and video in a compact disc.

41). PW.10/Savara Ranaga Rao and PW.11/ Savara Ravi Kumar, testified that the accused is also the resident of their village, they know the wife of accused also, they were blessed with two children. They testified that the accused is habituated consuming alcohol and harassed the deceased suspecting her fidelity. They also stated that the deceased used to leave to her parents house and the accused used to get back her. The witness stated that for about three times, they held panchayats at the in-laws house of the accused, but the accused did not mend his behavior and on 16-10-2021, the accused shot dead his wife with country made gun. The witnesses also stated that after knowing about the incident, they visited the scene of offence and also present at the time of inquest and all the panchayatdars opined that the deceased died in the hands of accused as he shooted her with country made gun. He also stated that he attested Ex.P3/Inquest report.

42).If the above evidence of P.Ws.1 to PW.4, & PW.7 is scrutinized with more than ordinary care and caution, as mandated by the settled proposition of law about the evidentiary value of the blood related interested witnesses, the same gives the impression that, PW.1 is brother of the deceased, PW.2 is the sister of the deceased, PW.3 is the son of the deceased & accused, PW.4 is the brother of the accused, PW.7 is the paternal aunt of the deceased deposed the facts which are within their cognizance as to the marriage of the deceased and her giving birth to two male children through her legally wedded husband accused and living in their house in Bharanikota village.

The evidence of P.Ws.1 to PW.4, & PW.7 consistently shows sprouting of the

SC.54/2022, Date:16-04-2026

VI Addl. District & Sessions Court, Sompeta. - 35 - harassment and motive of the accused against the deceased during their matrimonial life in Bharanikota village to the knowledge of one and all even in

Thentuligam village also. It is also consistent evidence of P.Ws.1 to PW.4, &

PW.7 except the evidence of PW.3 son of the deceased that when the accused bet and harassed the deceased used to leave the matrimonial home to their parents house. Part -I C.D. is filed by the Police into the Court along with the charge sheet and the same also discloses about the harassment and disputes between the deceased and accused and further leading to the murder of the deceased by accused. The same was corroborated with the testimony of P.Ws.1 to PW.4, & PW.7. It is also the consistent evidence of

P.Ws.1 to PW.4, & PW.7 that prior to the incident also the accused beat her and she came to her parents house at Thentuligam village and further taken back by the accused to Bharanikota village after solving the dispute with the elders but subsequently they received information about the death of the deceased from P.W.3 who is the son of the deceased and accused. It is also the consistent evidence of P.Ws.1 to PW.4, & PW.7 that the accused harassed the deceased earlier also when the deceased lived with the accused at Bharanikota village since her marriage and due to the said harassment only the deceased used to left the matrimonial home to her parents house. Thus, the evidence of P.Ws.1 to PW.4, & PW.7 categorically and consistently shows that the accused harassed the deceased during her life time before causing her to death . The specific evidence of “P.Ws.1 to

PW.4, & PW.7 that the accused prior to the death of the deceased, accused beat her and taken her back to matrimonial home and further on the date of incident quarreled with her and killed his wife by firing with firearm”, was specifically stated by all the witnesses. No doubt, in a Criminal Case it is for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused for the charged offences beyond all reasonable doubt, but at the same time when “once a witness has

SC.54/2022, Date:16-04-2026

VI Addl. District & Sessions Court, Sompeta. - 36 - stated a fact and if it is not challenged in the cross-examination, it must be presumed that such fact is an admitted fact”, as held by the Hon’ble A.P. High

Court in the case of Mukthyar Singh Vs. State of A.P. 2006 (1) ALT (Crl.)

Page:411 (A.P.) . Thus, this proposition of law makes it quite un-equivocal that the accused admitted the fact of his beating the deceased prior to the death of her and went to her parents home and further the accused get back her and quarreled with her on the date of incident and caused the death of the deceased.In this context it is pertinent to mention here that the guilt of the accused in any Criminal Case shall be decided on the material evidence borne by record. But at the same time the facts and circumstances which emanate from the material evidence spoken by the witnesses, it is inevitable for the Court to draw certain inference from the same. In the case on hand the admitted facts of that the accused used to bet and harass his wife/deceased suspecting her fidelity and on all ocassions when she went to her parents house accused used to get back her to the matrimonial home to

Bharanikota village and prior to the incident also an ocassion occurred, there the accused assuring his in laws and elders before pachayat get back his wife and further on the date of incident the accused in intoxicant state quarreling with the deceased and caused death by firing with fire arm on the chest of his wife in his house would suggest some inevitable inferences to the incident. Of course, for ultimately deciding whether the accused committed the charged offences the whole evidence need to be scrutinized but the facts and circumstances emanated from the consistent evidence of P.Ws.1 to PW.4, & PW.7 would suggest the above inevitable inferences. Even as seen from the tenor of the cross-examination of

P.Ws.1 to PW.4, & PW.7 no doubt, the evidence of P.Ws.1 to PW.4, & PW.7 and

Ex.P1 report show that they strongly suspected the accused as responsible for the death of the deceased. There was base for their strong suspicion which is the harassment of the accused on the deceased, more particularly the harassment of the accused on the deceased by beating the deceased and threatening her to kill

SC.54/2022, Date:16-04-2026

VI Addl. District & Sessions Court, Sompeta. - 37 - even prior to the incident and on that a mediation occurred before elders and the accused get her back to his matrimonial fold and on the date of incident the accused picked up quarrel with the deceased and killed her with firearm firing on her chest and further immediately PW.3 the son of the accused and deceased who is in the compound at their house and on hearing the firing sound immediately rushed into the house and found the deceased lying in pool of blood and his father the accused hold with a firearm. In this context it is pertinent to mention here that it is settled law that “however strong suspicion may be it does not substitute the legal proof”. This proposition of law makes it abundantly clear that the guilt of the accused in any criminal case shall not be decided on mere suspicion but on legal proof. In the case on hand there are no direct eye-witness to the incident as such the case banks on the circumstantial evidence. So, it is to be seen whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the charged offences beyond all reasonable doubt by the chain of circumstances and for that only this court is endeavoring with all circumstances by scrutinizing the availableoraland documentary evidence. As seen from the evidence of P.Ws.1 to PW.4, & PW.7 there was nothing un-natural on the part of the deceased going to their parents house whenever the accused beat, threatening her to kill and divulging the harassment of the accused on her to them and in view of the same, this court is of the considered opinion that P.Ws.1 to PW.4, & PW.7 are the natural persons/witnesses for knowing from the deceased about the harassment of the accused on her. P.Ws.1 to PW.4, & PW.7 consistently deposed about the deceased coming to them and disclosing them about the harassment of the accused over her earlier and also specifically about the incident prior to the death of the deceased and the evidence of P.Ws.1 to PW.4, & PW.7 specifically shows that the accused quarreling with the deceased just four days prior to the incident.

This court very carefully scrutinized Ex.P1 report, 161 Cr.P.C. statements of P.Ws.1 to PW.4 & PW.7 and contrasted the same with their evidence and found that their

SC.54/2022, Date:16-04-2026

VI Addl. District & Sessions Court, Sompeta. - 38 - testimony is not bristled with any material improvements, omissions or contradictions, as they maintained consistency through out and the same gives the impression that they deposed the true facts of what they know about the incident and prior to the incident. This court does not think that

P.Ws.1 to PW.4, & PW.7 being the natural brother, sister, son, paternal aunt to the deceased and PW.4 is the brother of deceased, would leave the real culprit and falsely implicate the accused as responsible for the death of the deceased. When plea of false implication is the defence of the accused, accused has to lay foundation for the same as held in Gali Venkataiah Vs.

State of A.P. 2008 (1) ALD (Crl.) 157 (SC), but as seen from the tenor of the cross-examination of the material witnesses particularly P.Ws.1 to PW.4, &

PW.7, accused has miserably failed to prove his plea of false implication as nothing was elicited by him in their cross-examination, nor he adduced any positive evidence to propbalize the same. On the other hand, accused self- bulldozed his defence of possession of firearem by everyone as they are living in agency area and false implication of accused by giving such suggestions in the cross-examination of P.Ws.1 to PW.4, & PW.7, which buttress the case of the prosecution deposed by P.Ws.1 to PW.4, & PW.7 in their chief-examination. As such nothing appears to this court not to consider the evidence of P.Ws.1 to PW.4, & PW.7 which is found natural, trust-worthy and inspiring the confidence of the Court after scanning and scrutinizing the same with keen observation more than ordinary care and caution. In view of my aforestated discussion, this court have no hesitation to hold that the testimony of keen observation can be relied upon, as the same passed the test of naturally, probability, truthfulness and the proposition of law on blood related interested witnesses.

SC.54/2022, Date:16-04-2026

VI Addl. District & Sessions Court, Sompeta. - 39 - 43).The evidence of PW.5 and PW.8, PW.10&11 are the independent witness and circumstantial witnesses and now to see whether the same corroborates the testimony of P.Ws.1 to PW.4, & PW.7 and the case of the prosecution with regard to the circumstances of the case.

44).PW.5/Savara Buddayya testified that he know the accused as well as his wife, he stated that the accused used to pickup quarrel with his wife when he is in intoxicant state and at that time his wife used to leave matrimonial home to her parents house and further the accused get back her to his matrimonial fold. Witness testified that the deceased died on Saturday in 10th month four years back. He testified that he heard firing of firearm and immediately when he was proceeding to the scene of offence he stated that he found the accused leaving from there holding gun and observed the wife of accused died causing injury on her chest. He identified the country made gun and stated that police examined him.

45).PW.8/Savara Nagaswara Rao testified that he know the accused and identified him in the court hall. He stated that he acted as elder to pacify the disputes held at the village. Once the dispute of the deceased is placed

before them stating that the accused is harassing his wife Padma in

intoxicant state and on that, all members in pachayat admonished the accused to lookafter her wellbeing, and on that the accused took her back to his matrimonial home. Later, he came to know that the accused killed his wife using country made gun. PW.10/Savara Ranaga Rao testified that the accused is also the resident of his village, he know the wife of accused. He testified that the accused is habituated consuming alcohol and harassed the deceased suspecting her fidelity. He also about the prior incidents before the cause of death and further he stated that for about three times, they held

SC.54/2022, Date:16-04-2026

VI Addl. District & Sessions Court, Sompeta. - 40 - panchayats at the in-laws house of the accused, but he accused did not mend his behavior and further he stated that on 16-10-2021, the accused shot dead his wife with country made gun. He stated that he visited the scene of offence and also present at the time of inquest and all the panchayatdars opined that the deceased died in the hands of accused as he shooted with country made gun. He also stated that he attested

Ex.P3/Inquest report. PW.11/ Savara Ravi Kumar, also testified that the accused is the resident of his village and further stated as in same lines of

PW.10.

46).If the above evidence of PW.5, PW8, PW10&11 is scrutinized with meticulous care and caution the same manifests their evidence shows that they supported the case of the prosecution with regard to the fact that the accused and deceased are living at Bharnikota village since their marriage and they were blessed with two male children, accused is habituated consuming alcohol and harassed the deceased suspecting her fidelity. They also stated that the deceased used to leave to her parents house and the accused used to get back her. The witness stated that for about three times, they held panchayats at the in-laws house of the accused, but the accused did not mend his behavior and on 16-10-2021, the accused shot dead his wife with country made gun. They also stated that they visited the scene of offence and also present during the course of inquest. The evidence of all witnesses corroborates the testimony of P.Ws.1 to 4 and PW.7 as to the accused beating and threatening the deceased prior to the incident and with regard to the pachayats held before elders and further an incident prior to the incident and as usual the deceased going to her parents house and the accused getting back her to Bharnikota to matrimonial home and further on the incident happened on 16.10.2021. Thus, the testimony of PW.5, PW8,

SC.54/2022, Date:16-04-2026

VI Addl. District & Sessions Court, Sompeta. - 41 -

PW10 & PW.11 lends credence to the testimony of P.Ws.1 to 4, & PW.7 as to the material crux of the incident and the course of events that were taken place prior and after the incident. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to PW.5 and PW.7,

PW8, PW10 & 11 categorically shows that on the date of incident 16.10.2021 at about 04:30 pm the accused killed his wife in his home at Bharanikota village, the evidence of PW.3 who is the son of the accused and deceased who is in the compound of house and immediately rushed into the house and seen the accused holding firearm and the deceased lying in pool of blood and further immediatley PW4, PW5, PW.10 & 11 visited to the scene of offence and seen the accused leaving with fire arm and deceased lying in pool of blood causing injury on her chest and later PW.1, PW.2, PW.7 &

PW.8 visiting the seen of offence and observed the deceased died causing wound injury on her chest as the accused intentionally used firearm and eliminated his wife, as the medical evidence also indisputably shows that the death of the deceased was homicide i.e., Deceased died due to haemorrhagic shock associated with cardiorespiratory arrest secondary to gun shot wound.

47). PW.6/Nivagana Narayana Rao, VRO of Bharanikota Village is the mediator testified that on 17.10.2021 he received call from PW.18 and on that he went to scene of offence at the accused house along with LW.17/Perumalla

Kurmayya. There they observed the deceased was shot dead causing injury over her chest, and he drafted Ex.P2 attested by him and LW.17 and further his evidence with regard to inquest held over the deceased body by PW.18 and an Ex.P.3/inquest report is drafted by him wherein all panchayatdars opined that the accused killed his wife padma suspecting her fidelity. Further he testified that the deceased body shifted to CHC, Pathapatnam for autopsy and there he drafted Ex.P.4 and attested along with others. He further

SC.54/2022, Date:16-04-2026

VI Addl. District & Sessions Court, Sompeta. - 42 - testified that on 18.10.2021 at about 7.AM. the accused appeared before him at Sachivalayam and the accused stated about the offence committed by him and his statement was was drafted under Ex.P5 obtaining the accused signature and further the accused was produced before SHO under Ex.P6 report along with Ex.P5, and further PW.6 gave a statement under 164 CrPC is supporting the prosecution case.

48). PW.12/Batchu Annaji Rao who is also one of the mediator testified in his evidence that on 18-10-2021, at about 08.00 a,m, he along with

LW.23/Kurella Samuel proceeded to Meliaputti P.S and there in PS they found the accused and in their presence along with PW.18, the accused disclosed his details and narrated the disputes with his wife and about the incident occurred on 16-10-2021, he testified that the accused stated that the said gun belongs Savara Veeranna used to hunt wild animals and after the death of Savara Veeranna, he kept the said country made gun with him.

He stated that PW.6 recorded the statement of accused and produced him

before Meliaputti Police. Witness testified that entire statements of accused

is recorded under the cover of Ex.P7 which was attested by him also.

He identified the accused in the court hall. He further stated that he accompanied along with PW.18 in the process of discovery of the weapon and other material objects, where the accused stated to be hidden at off- shore reservoir at Pattupuram village. There in the presence of them,

PW.18 discovered and recovered the material objects, under cover of

Ex.P9, witness identified the MO.11/country made gun and blue colour shirt MO.12 and the signature on the identification slips is supporting the prosecution case.

SC.54/2022, Date:16-04-2026

VI Addl. District & Sessions Court, Sompeta. - 43 - 49).PW.9/Gavalapu Mahesh is also circumstantial witness testified that he is the photographer and since 11 years he is working as photographer. On 17.10.2021, PW.18 inspector of police requested him to take photos of scene of offence at Bharanikota village and on his instructions he photographed and videographed the scene of offence and on the next day, he went to

Pattupuram village to the place off-shore reservoir and photographed the procedure of discovery of weapon and other material objects by PW.18 . He stated that he handed-over the hard copies of photos, and video by way of

Compact Disc.

50). To see whether the prosecution has proved the confession and seizure, it is pertinent to look at the relevant evident of P.W.18 the Investigation Officer and PW.6 & PW.12 the mediator witness for inquest, confession and seizure of material objects.

51)P.W.18 R Ravi Prasad is the Inspector of Police and the Investigation Officer in this case and his evidence shows that on 17.10.2021 he in the presence of his staff and clues team and the mediators PW.6 Nivagana Narayana rao the

Village Revenue Officer of Bharanikota village, LW.17 observed the scene of offence under Ex.P2, prepared rough sketch Ex.P12, incriminating samples silver colored powered, black coloured powered, black coloured crystal, black coloured pwered, steel balls, different colors balls, best quality crackers, blood stained steel balls, steel balls on the floor and blood stained nighty and inner langga MO.1 to MO.10 are seized under Ex.P13, conducted inquest over the deceased under Ex.P3, and further received deceased belongings at CHC pathapatnam under Ex.P4, and arrested of accused when he was brought by PW.6 under Ex.P6 along with Ex.P5 (statement before PW.6) and recorded his confession under Ex.P7 confessional statement before the

SC.54/2022, Date:16-04-2026

VI Addl. District & Sessions Court, Sompeta. - 44 - presence of the mediators and PW.12 Batchu Annaji Rao who is also mediator. The accused after confessing led the IO and mediators to the Off

Shore Reservoir at Pattupuram , where the accused handed over MO.11 country made gun and MO.12 shirt of accused, the IO seized the same under the cover of panchanama Ex.P8 the relevant portion i.e., confession leading to discovery of M.O.11 country made gun and shirt of the accused MO.12.

The above testimony of the Investigation Officer P.W.18 was remained unshaken in the lengthy cross-examination by accused counsel.

53)It is pertinent to see the evidence of PW.6 Nivagana Narayana Rao and the evidence of PW.12 Batchu Aannaji Rao to see whether the same corroborates the testimony of the Investigation Officer as to the Ex.P2 to P13 and the seizure of MO.1 to MO.10 from the scene of offenc and MO.11 to

MO.12 from the accused at the off shore reservoir at pattupuram village.

P.W.6 is the Village Revenue Officer of Bharanikota village and he deposed that on 17.10.2021 at 08.00 A.M., Police called him to come to scene there in his presence the scene was observed and Ex.P2/scene observation report,

P3/inquest report, Ex.P12/rough sketch and Ex.P13 and MO.1 to MO.10 are seized, and on 18.10.2021 PW.6 brought the accused under Ex.P6(report) along with Ex.P5 (statement of accused) and in presence of PW.12/Batchu

Aannaji Rao recorded the confessional panchanama of accused about committing offence under Ex.P7 and subsequently, the accused had shown

M.O.11 used by him in the commission of offence to kill his wife and also shown his blood stained shirt MO.12 and the same are seized by the Police at his instance under Ex.P8 seizure panchanama and obtained their signatures on the same and on the slips which were pasted on MO.11 and

MO.12 and are identified by PW.6 as well as P.W.12.

SC.54/2022, Date:16-04-2026

VI Addl. District & Sessions Court, Sompeta. - 45 -

54)Thus, the evidence of PW.6 corroborates the evidence of PW.12 the investigation officer with regard to the seizure of MO’s and confession of the accused of committing of the offence and also seizure of M.O.11 and MO.12 from the accused at his instance at off shore reservoir at pattupuram. From the evidence of PWs.6 and P.W.12 it is clear that it is the accused that led them and the other mediators along with PW.18 to off shore reservoir and picked out MO.11 country made gun and MO.12 shirt of accused and the same shows that the said place from where MO.11 and MO.12 were seized are known to the accused being the person who hidden MO.11 which was used by him in the commission of the offence for killing his wife the deceased and caused death. In this context it is pertinent to look at the settled law about the testimony of a Police Official.

In Sukhpal V. State of Haryana AIR 1995 SC 578, the Supreme Court observed that:

“It may be indicated here that as a rule of prudence corroboration (of police witness) probably by a reliable witness is desirable but in all cases such corroboration cannot be insisted as a matter of course because it may not be possible in all cases to get corroboration from an independent witnesses.” 55).From the above case law and the ratio laid down by their lordship it is clear that there is no bar for the Court to accept the evidence of the investigating officer, regarding the recovery of the crime object. The seizure of M.O.11 country made gun from the accused at his instance by the Investigation

Officer P.W.18 before the presence of Pancha witness PW.6 and P.W.12 and other mediators and staff is admissible under section 27 of the Evidence Act and this Court admitted the said admissible portion in Ex.P8 seizure

SC.54/2022, Date:16-04-2026

VI Addl. District & Sessions Court, Sompeta. - 46 - panchanama as the same satisfies the required ingredients of Section 27 of

Evidence Act, as the Hon’ble High Court of AP in the case of Kanala

Venkata Krishna yadav Vs. State of A.P. reported in 2005 (2) ALD

(Crl.) 376 (A.P.) at Para 25 enumerated the same for attraction of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, which is extracted below:

(i) there must be discovery of fact which is relevant;

(ii) the discovery of such fact must be deposed;

(iii) at the time of receipt of information, the accused must be in

Police custody;

(iv) that only remedy of the information as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered is admissible u/s 27 of the Evidence

Act.

56). Thus, in view of the above facts established from the material evidence vide the testimony of Pws.6 and 12 and Exs.P7 & P8 and further in view of my discussion as above this court hold that prosecution has proved the confession of the accused with regard to the seizure of M.O.11 & MO.12 from the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

57). I have already referred to the evidence of autopsy done by doctor

P.W.16/ Dr. K Bala Krishna and also Ex.P-09 and Ex.P10 post-mortem examination report pending final opinion and final opinion have given a categorical finding basing on the same that the death of the deceased was homicidal and the prosecution has proved the same beyond all reasonable doubt by the evidence of the PW.6 with Ex.P3 inquest report of the deceased. The PW.16 doctor categorically deposed and gave Ex.P9 &

Ex.P10 post-mortem examination report of the deceased opining that the death of the deceased is due to “haemorrhagic shock associated with

SC.54/2022, Date:16-04-2026

VI Addl. District & Sessions Court, Sompeta. - 47 - cardiorespiratory arrest secondary to gunshot wound.” and the same corroborates the case of the prosecution that the accused caused the deceased to death by using MO.11 country made gun. Thus, prosecution has proved circumstance.

58).To prove the motive of the accused in comitting the it is necessity to look into the settled law

In the case of Smt.Omavati Vs. Mahendra Sing reported in AIR 1998

SUPREME COURT (249), the Honourable Apex Court of India about the motive held as follows that:

“Proof of motive is not necessity to sustain a conviction but when the prosecution puts forward a specific case as to motive for the crime, the evidence regarding the same has got to be considered in order to judge the probabilities. Motive for a crime is a satisfactory circumstance of corroboration when there is convincing evidence to prove the guilt of the accused person but it cannot fill-up a lacuna in evidence.” 59).The Proposition of law in the above decision, makes it clear that motive has got its own importance in a case where the evidence is only of circumstantial in nature and when the prosecution puts forward a specific case as to motive for the crime, the evidence regarding the same has got to be considered in order to judge the probabilities.

60). The motive for the offence as per the version of the prosecution and as seen from the argument of the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor is that the deceased was harassing the accused since his marriage without doing any work and on all the times the deceased left the matrimonial home to her

SC.54/2022, Date:16-04-2026

VI Addl. District & Sessions Court, Sompeta. - 48 - parents house and further with the intervention of elder and panchayats held

before them the accused took her back to his matrimonial house to

Bharanikota stating that he will look well without beating, and the accused continued harassing his wife by beating her and threatening her that he will kill her and lastly before the incident also the deceased went to her parents home and with the intervention of elder the accused took her back and on 16.10.2021 at about 4:30 pm the accused picked up quarrel and killed his wife with firearm firing on her chest. It is also the stand of the prosecution that the evidence borne by record and the facts and circumstances emanating from the same inevitably and irresistibly leads to the conclusions that accused but none else is responsible for the death of the deceased. I have already discussed elaborately the oral and documentary evidence borne by record and has given my finding that prosecution has proved the circumstances beyond all reasonable doubt and now it is to be seen whether the prosecution has proved the motive of the accused for coming the offence

Having scanned the whole evidence with caution, I am of the considered opinion that there is force in the argument of the learned Addl. Public

Prosecutor with regard to the motive for the offence and the fact that it is only the accused but none else is responsible for the death of the deceased. The ends of justice demand drawing of certain inevitable and irresistible inferences and conclusions basing on the facts and circumstances which emanate from the evidence borne by the record. As seen from the tenor of the cross-examination of the material witnesses, the accused did not specifically deny the positive evidence deposed by the witnesses particularly

P.W.3 who is the son of the deceased and accused immediately rushed into the house after hearing the firing sound of gun and found the accused holding country made gun and his mother lying in pool of blood and PW.4 who is the brother of the accused stated the incidents prior to the incident

SC.54/2022, Date:16-04-2026

VI Addl. District & Sessions Court, Sompeta. - 49 - and he testified that his brother accused killed his wife with country made gun on the date of incident as he had seen his brother accused leaving the scene of offece with gun, which acknowledges there was no necessity for anybody to kill the deceased other than the accused. The facts and circumstances emanating from the evidence of PW.1 to PW.19 shows that it was the accused but none-else that was responsible for the unnatural and homicidal death of the deceased.

61) On close scrutiny of the entire evidence available on record, the oral and documentary and medical evidence clearly established that the accused has committed the murder of his wife deceased Savara Padma on 16.10.2021.

Accordingly, point is answered.

62).In view of my foregoing discussion about the facts of the present case testified by the witnesses, in view of consistingandcorroborating testimonies of PW.1 to PW.5 & PW.7, PW.8 and PW.10 & 11with regard to commission of offence under section 302 of Indian Penal Code and section 25 and 27 of Indian Arms Act by Accused, the discrepancies and inconsistencies pointed out by the learned defense counsel are minor and which will not root out the case of the prosecution 63).The charge under section 498-A there is no mention of any type of demand of money or dowry other than that the accused beat his wife suspecting her fidelity in Ex.P1 report as well as in the evidence of all witnesses. On perusal of the entire record also there is no evidence to substantiate the allegations of harassment under cruelty within the scope of section 498-A of Indian

Penal Code.

SC.54/2022, Date:16-04-2026

VI Addl. District & Sessions Court, Sompeta. - 50 - 64).In view of the foregoing discussion and in view of ratio laid down in the above referred citations, this Court holds that the prosecution has established the guilt against Accused for the offences under Sections 302 of Indian Penal

Code and under sections 25 & 27 of Indian Arms Act beyond all reasonable doubt, and the prosecution failed to establish the guilt against Accused for the offence under Sections 498-A of Indian Penal Code. Accordingly the points are answered.

65).In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the charge under section 498-A of IPC, accordingly he is acquitted under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C.

Further, the accused is found guilty for the offences under section 302 of IPC and sections 25 & 27 of Indian Arms Act for possessing and using unlicensed country made gun causing the death of his wife the deceased, accordingly he is convicted for those offences under section 235(2) of Cr.P.C.

Partly dictated to the Stenographer, typed by him, partly typed by me, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 16 th day of April, 2026. Digitally Signed by

KISHORE BABU KODURU

KISHORE BABU

Date: 2026.04.16 19:52:52 +0530

KODURU

VI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Sompeta.

HEARING ON QUANTUM OF SENTENCE OF THE ACCUSED:

The accused is questioned with regard to quantum of sentence. His submission is recorded on a separate sheet.

During hearing of quantum of sentence, the accused submitted and pleaded that he did not commit the offence, he is having children and his brothers are planning to grab his immovable property and requested to take lenient view.

SC.54/2022, Date:16-04-2026

VI Addl. District & Sessions Court, Sompeta. - 51 -

The defence counsel, on behalf of accused submitted that the accused hailed from poor family, having two sons undergoing school studies, and they are depending on him. Without the presence of accused they will suffer, hence prays to consider and show lenient view.

Hence, taking into consideration the gravity of offence and nature of crime, and manner in which the accused committed, the accused is sentenced to undergo “imprisonment for life” for the offence under section 302 of IPC and also to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only), in default of payment of fine, to suffer

Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months. The accused is further sentenced to undergo “Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years” for the offence under sections 25 & 27 of Indian Arms Act and also to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only), in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. The remand period of the accused shall be given set-off under

Section 428 of Cr.P.C. M.Os.1 to 10 & 12 and unmarked property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. The MO.11/ unlicensed country made gun shall be confiscated to the state through concerned station house officer and further it shall be sent to the nearest Arsenal Department for disposal after the expiry of appeal time.

The accused is informed about his right to prefer an appeal against this judgment before the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh is within 30 days from the date of this judgment.

SC.54/2022, Date:16-04-2026

VI Addl. District & Sessions Court, Sompeta. - 52 -

The accused is enquired about his means to engage Advocate to defend his case before the Hon’ble Appellate Court and also informed about the availability of free Legal Aid before the Hon’ble Appellate Court.

Free copy of judgment is furnished to the accused.

Digitally Signed by

KISHORE BABU KODURU

KISHORE BABU

Date: 2026.04.16 19:59:02 +0530

KODURU

VI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Sompeta.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution : For Defence: PW.1 : Savara Narasimhulu,None. PW.2 : Savara Lakshimi, PW.3 : Savara Jagadish PW.4 : Savara Sankara Rao PW.5 : Savara Buddayya PW.6 : Nivagana Narayana Rao, VRO PW.7 : Savara Royabari PW.8 : Savara Nageswara Rao, PW.9 : Gavalapu Mahesh, PW.10 : Savara Ranga Rao. PW.11 : Savara Ravi Kumar, PW.12 : Batchu Aannaji VRO, PW.13 : D. Chinnammudu, PW.14 : B. Madhusudhana Rao PW.15 : S. Adhinarayana PW.16 : Dr. K Bala Krishna (Medical Officer) PW.17 : V Sandeep, SI of police. PW.18 : R. Ravi Prasad PW.19 : M.Vinod Babu,

EXIHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution: Ex.P1 : Report given to Police by PW.1. Ex.P2 : Scene observation report.

SC.54/2022, Date:16-04-2026

VI Addl. District & Sessions Court, Sompeta. - 53 -

Ex.P3 : Inquest Report. Ex.P4 : Mediators Report. Ex.P5 : Confession Statement of accused before PW.6. Ex.P6 : Report of VRO to police. Ex.P7 : Confession Statement of accused. Ex.P8 : Seizure Report. Ex.P9 : Postmortem Report issued by PW.16. Ex.P10: Final Opinion issued by PW.16. Ex.P11: FIR. Ex.P12: Rough Sketch. Ex.P13: Four Photos and compact disc. Ex.P14: RFSL Report dt/ 06.01.2022. Ex.P15: RFSL Report dt 31.12.2021. Ex.P16: RFSL Report dt 17.06.2022. Ex.P17: Proceedings of Collector,Srikakulam.

For Defence:NIL.

Ex.D1: Highlighted sentence in Ex.P3. Ex.D2: Highlighted sentence 161 Cr.P.C Statment of PW.8.

MATERIAL OBJECTS

MO1: Silver colour powder. MO2: Black colour powder. MO3: Black colour crtystaline powder. MO4: Black colour powder, MO5: Steel balls. MO6: Different colour metal balls. MO7: Best quality red cloured Bharathi cap red colour capes (Crackers) MO8: Blood stained steel balls collected from the leg of the deceased. MO9: Steel balls collected on the floor. MO10: Blood stained deceased clothes (Nighty and inner langa). MO11: Country made gun. MO12: Shirt. Digitally Signed by

KISHORE BABUKISHORE BABU KODURU

KODURUDate: 2026.04.16 20:04:11 +0530

VI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Sompeta.

APSR040000412023

IN THE COURT OF VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE:SOMPETA

Present : Sri KODURU KISHORE BABU, VI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Sompeta.

THURSDAY, THIS THE THIRTY DAY OF APRIL, 2026.

S.C.No.27/2023

(PRC No.01/2023 on the file of Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sompeta, arising out of Crime No.94/2022 of Mandasa Police Station).

Between :

The State represented by Inspector of Police, Kasibugga Rural Circle, Srikakulam District. …Complainant. And :

A1).Konda Ramesh, S/o.Late Krishnamurthy, Aged about 25 years, R/o.Gaudagurandi village, Mandasa Mandal, Srikakulam District.

A2).Bhuvaneswara Behara @ Bhuvan @ Bobbi, S/o.Brundavan Behara, Aged about 26 years, R/o.Gaudagurandi village, Mandasa Mandal, Srikakulam District.

...Accused/A1 & A2.

Offences charged : U/Sections 302 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.

Plea of the Accused : Pleaded Not guilty.

This case is coming on 16-04-2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Learned Additional Public Prosecutor/Sri Duvvu Jagannaikulu for the State; and Sri D.Rukmangadhudu, Advocate for the Accused and upon perusing the entire material evidence on record and upon hearing arguments on both sides, this Court delivered the following :

SC.27/2023, Date:30-04-2026

VI Addl. District & Sessions Court, Sompeta. - 2 -

J U D G M E N T

01.The State represented by Inspector of Police, Kasibugga Rural Circle filed a charge sheet against the accused/A1 & A2 in Crime No.94/2022 of Mandasa

PS for the offence punishable under section 302 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code, alleging that both accused/A1 & A2 murdered the deceased Ananda Setti (hereinafter referred as deceased) by strangulating him with a towel.

02.The case of prosecution as per averments made in charge sheet is as follows:

That accused/A1 & A2 are native of Gaudagurandi village of Mandasa

Mandal. LW.1/Thilothama Setti is the defacto-complainant who is the wife of deceased lodged a report to LW.23/Y.Madhusudana Rao, Incharge Sub-

Inspector of Police, Mandasa P.S, reporting that the deceased is her husband and she is 2nd wife to him, the deceased used to do mason work, they lived at Hyderabad and they were blessed with two female children.

The defacto-complainant reported that she and her husband (deceased) along with their children returned to Gaudagurandi village prior to four months of the incident to construct a permanent house to them and living at her parent’s house. The defacto-complainant further mentioned that her husband got acquaintance with both accused/A1 & A2 as they are also residents of Gaudagurandi village and often meet to drink alcohol together.

The informant stated that her husband informed her both accused/A1 & A2 used to comment her husband (deceased) that he is living as matrilocal person and the same was canvassing in their village by accused/A1. On that, on 27-07-2022, at 05.00 p.m, her husband (deceased) went to the house of A1/K.Ramesh and questioned him canvassing against him, on that both A1 and deceased disputed and brawled each other and with the intervention of elders the dispute among them was pacified at that time. The

SC.27/2023, Date:30-04-2026

VI Addl. District & Sessions Court, Sompeta. - 3 - defacto complainant further reported that on 30-07-2022, when the deceased standing on road at his village, both accused/A1 & A2 came on scooty bearing No AP 30S 1307, wherein A2/Bhuvaneswar Behara is the rider of the scooty and A1/K.Ramesh is the pillion rider took the deceased with them and proceeded towards Kulaidi village. Later, at about 06.00 p.m, the brother of defacto complainant Chudamani Setti came to her house and informed that both accused/A1 & A2 beat and murdered her husband / Ananda Setti strangulating him with a towel near the fields of Savara Vasudevat Kullaidi village as the same was informed to LW.5/Chudamani Setti by LW.6/Raika

Trinadh and LW.7/Judisti Sahu. The defacto complainant further stated that she along with family members, relatives and villagers went to the scene of offence and observed that her husband/Ananda Setti found dead, and also observed a towel around his neck tied tightly, oozing blood from ears and came to know that both accused/A1 & A2 had quarreled with her husband and murdered by beating him with hands and strangulating him with towel.

On that, defacto complainant Thilothama Setti gave a report to complainant police on 31-07-2022. Basing on the report given by LW.1/Thilothama Setty,

LW.23/Y.Madhusudana Rao, Incharge S.I of Police, Mandasa P.S registered a case in Crime No.94/2022 for the offence under section 302 r/w 34 of IPC.

LW.24/S.Sankara Rao, Incharge Inspector of Police, Kasibugga Rural Circle, after receiving information about the incident, took-up the investigation, during the course of investigation, LW.24/S.Sankara Rao, Inspector of Police,

Kasibugga Rural Circle proceeded to Mandasa Police station and made a requisition to Tahsildar, Mandasa, requesting for mediators, and after securing the presence of mediators proceeded to the crime scene, inspected the place of offence with the assistance of clues team, collected all incriminating material evidence, prepared scene observation report, rough sketch, seized the towel and held inquest over the dead body in the presence

SC.27/2023, Date:30-04-2026

VI Addl. District & Sessions Court, Sompeta. - 4 - of mediators and blood relatives examined and recorded their Section 161

Cr.P.C statements of LWs.1 to 5 and LW.8. Further, the investigating officer forwarded the deceased body for autopsy to CHC, Haripuram.

LW.20/Dr.G.Triveni, Civil Assistatn Surgeon, conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued Post-Mortem Report and final opinion.

On 02-08-2022, LW.25/D.Ramu, Inspector of Police, Kasibugga Rural

Circle received case diary and continued his investigation and on credible information about the accused he secured the presence of mediators LW.13 & 14 and proceeded towards Sasanam village and found two persons coming on scooty who tried to escape on seeing the police, with the help of staff LW.25 apprehended them at Cheepi village junction, on inquiry of both accused/A1 & A2 they disclosed about the crime done by them and basing on their statement, LW.25 seized scooty vehicle, mobiles from the accused and drawn rough sketch and photographed the seizure procedure and proceeded to the place where the accused kept the deceased mobile and discovered it and as the primafacie of commission of offence is madeout against both accused, the Investigating officer arrested accused/A1 & A2 and sent them for remand under section 302 IPC. Further, LW.25 secured the presence of LW.9 and 10 at Gaudagurandi village and recorded their 161

Cr.P.C statements. Further, he secured the presence of LW.11/Pasupureddy

Kumaraswamy and recorded his statement, further he sent all seized material objects to RFSL following the process.

LW.26 /G.Sankara Rao, Inspector of Police, Kasibugga Rural Circle received the case diary from LW.25 and continued his investigation verifying it. He received RFSL reports and opinions from the concerned authorities

SC.27/2023, Date:30-04-2026

VI Addl. District & Sessions Court, Sompeta. - 5 - and concluding that the investigation in this case, disclosing that both accused/A1 & A2 had committed the offence the investigation officer filed charge-sheet against the accused under section 302 r/w 34 of IPC.

3). The record reveals that on receipt of charge-sheet, the Learned Addl. Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Sompeta, has taken cognizance for the offence

punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 of IPC against the Accused/A1 & A2, assigned PRC.No.01/2023 in Cr.No.94/2022 of Mandasa Police Station.

After furnishing copies of case papers to both accused/A1 & A2 and further following the procedure under section 207 Cr.P.C, the Learned Addl. Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Sompeta, committed the case to the Hon’ble

Principal District and Sessions Court, Srikakulam along with committal order.

Upon which, the same is numbered as Sessions Case No.27/2023 by the

Hon’ble Principal Court of Sessions and made over the case to this Court,

i.e., VI Additional District & Sessions Court, Sompeta, for disposal according to Law.

4). After receipt of record, summons issued to both accused. On appearance of both Accused/A1 & A2, heard the Learned Additional Public Prosecutor on charges and the accused/A1 & A2 were examined and charges under section 302 r/w 34 of IPC are framed against both accused/A1 & A2. The charges with which accused are charged are readover and explained to the accused/A1 & A2 in Telugu language individually, having understood the charges, both accused/A1 & A2 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5).Dates for examination of prosecution witnesses is scheduled and fixed, also issued summons under section 230 of Cr.P.C to the prosecution for compelling the presence of prosecution witnesses.

SC.27/2023, Date:30-04-2026

VI Addl. District & Sessions Court, Sompeta. - 6 - 6).During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as 17 witnesses from PW.1 to PW.17 and got exhibited Ex.P1 to Ex.P15 and MO.1 to MO.6 were marked on behalf of prosecution. The Learned Additional

Public Prosecutor given up the evidences of LW.4, LW.7, LW.10, LW.14,

LW.16, LW.17, LW.19, 21 & 22 and reported that the prosecution evidence is closed.

7).After closure of prosecution evidence, both accused/A1 & A2 were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, explaining them individually in Telugu all the incriminating material, circumstances of commission of offence appearing on them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Having understood the said evidence both accused denied the same and reported that there is no evidence on their behalf.

8).Heard arguments on both sides. Perused the material available on record.

9).To prove the above case, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, submits that the prosecution on the whole examined PWs.1 to 17 and got marked Exhibits

P1 to P15 and MO.1 to MO.6. The Addl.P.P. submits that the prosecution established that the deceased/Ananda Setti died due to strangulating him with a towel around his neck by the accused/A1 & A2 with an intention to kill him on the pretext of previous disputes occurred between the accused/A1 &

A2 and the deceased. He further submitted that PW.5/Raika Trinadh and

LW.7/Judisti Sahu both witnesses are ocular witness to the incident, they both immediately reached to the Gowdagurandi village and informed to

PW.4/Chudamani Setti who is the brother-in-law of deceased and PW.4 immediately rushed to the scene of offence and found his brother in law deceased dead lying down having a towel tied around his neck and immediately reached to the house of PW.1 and informed her and further he

SC.27/2023, Date:30-04-2026

VI Addl. District & Sessions Court, Sompeta. - 7 - along with his sister, family members, and villagers, rushed to the scene of offence and found the deceased died having towel around his neck, observed blood oozing from both ears, found tongue coming-out of the deceased. On enquiry, they came to know that both A1 & A2 committed this offence.

10). The evidence of PW’s.1 to 8 and PW’s.10 & 11 connects corroborating that the offence is committed by the accused both A1 & A2.

PW.1/Tilottama Setti is the wife of deceased who accompanied with his brother PW.4 and other family members along with villagers went to the scene of offence at Kulaidi village and found her husband lying dead having towel tightly tied around his neck and also observed blood oozing from his both ears, as well as his tongue out from his mouth. On the next day morning, she gave a report to the complainant/police stating that she along with her husband returned to Goudagurandi village to construct a new house. Both the accused/A1 & A2 and her deceased husband having acquaintance with each other consumed alcohol jointly, and on that one occasion, the accused/A1 commented that the deceased is staying at her in- law’s house as a matrilocal person as the deceased is useless, canvassing the same in the village, on that one day the deceased went to the house of

A1 and asked him about canvassing in the village of his matrilocal stay, at that time they brawled each other and with the intervention of elders the dispute got pacified and the same was also informed by the deceased to his brother-in-law PW.4/Chudamani Setti for which he admonished not to accompany with both A1 & A2. On 30.07.2022, at about 02.00 p.m, when the deceased stood on the road at his village, both A1 & A2 came on scooty and took the deceased in between them on the scooty, and proceeded towards kulaidi village. After knowing the incident from PW.5, PW4 rushed to

SC.27/2023, Date:30-04-2026

VI Addl. District & Sessions Court, Sompeta. - 8 - the scene of offence and later after informing to his sister, family members and villagers all proceeded to the place of offence and observed the deceased died and later the defacto complainant lodged Ex.P1/Report before

Mandasa police station, which was drafted in Telugu by PW.6/P.Bhaskara

Rao on her dictation in Oriya language. PW.2/Balaram Setti, who is the father of PW.1 also deposed his evidence in the lines of PW.1. PW.3/Krishna

Setti deposed that he knows the deceased/Ananda Setti, he came to know the death of deceased from PW.1. Immediately, he along with two other persons reached to Gowdagurandi village and observed that the deceased found dead at place of offence, oozing blood from both ears, found towel tied tightly around his neck. He stated that he came to know that one Konda

Ramesh and Bhuvaneswar Behara killed the deceased/Ananda Setti. He also stated that he attended for inquest and funeral. PW.4/Chudamani Setti stated that he is living by working as driver for tractor and he stated that

PW.1 is his sister and they performed marriage for his sister with the deceased of Konda Dowli village of Orissa state, further they were blessed with two daughters. His sister along with her husband came to their village to construct a new house and living along with his parents, since then both the accused/A1 & A2 and deceased having acquaintance among them consumed alcohol jointly, and when on one occasion the accused/A1 commented that the deceased is staying as a matrilocal person and he is useless. On that both accused/A1 & A2 and the deceased had quarreled as both accused/A1 & A2 were canvassing the same in the village. On that one day the deceased went to the house of A1 and asked him about canvassing of his matrilocal stay and brawled each other and with the intervention of elders there the quarrled was stopped. On 30.07.2022, in between 04.00 p.m to 05.00 p.m, PW.4 Chudamani Setti observed that A1 & A2 and the deceased are proceeding on a scooty towards Kulaidi village, while he was

SC.27/2023, Date:30-04-2026

VI Addl. District & Sessions Court, Sompeta. - 9 - returning on tractor. He further stated that at about 05.30 p.m, while he was at his home, PW.5/Raika Trinadh and LW.7/Judisti Sahu informed him that both A1 & A2 jointly killed his brother-in-law Ananda Setti strangulating him with a towel at the fields of Savara Vasudeva Rao at Kulaidi village. Then, he immediately visited the scene of offence and observed his brother-in-law

Ananda Setti found dead oozing blood from both ears and leaving tongue from his mouth. He also stated that immediately he returned to his village and informed to his sister PW.1 about the death of Ananda Setti.

PW.5/Raika Trinadh also testified that while he was going to purchase sundry items for his business purpose from Chinna-Kosta village to Ambati kambaram village on bike, he found A1 & A2 jointly quarreling with deceased at Kulaidi village and when he tried to stop both A1 & A2, they scolded him in filthy language, meanwhile LW.7/Judisti Sahu came on his bike and again when they both tried to admonish them to rescue the deceased, both A1 &

A2 abused them not to interfere in the quarrel and they also scolded the deceased in Oriya language. He also stated that both A1 & A2 are in intoxicant state and they observed that A1 knotted the towel around the neck of A1, A2 caught hold the hands of the deceased. He also observed that the deceased fell down and both A1 & A2 ran away. Immediately, they both reached to the Gowdagurandi village and informed to the PW.4/brother-in-law of deceased. PW.6/P.Bhaskara Rao testified that the deceased Ananda Setti is the father-in-law of his brother, he stated that on 30-07-2022, he received information from his brother, i.e., PW.8/P.Kumaraswamy through phone about the incident. On 31.07.2022 at early hours, he reached to

Gowdagurandi village along with relatives and villagers and from there he visited the scene of offence and found the deceased died. Later, he along with PW.1 and relatives went to Mandasa P.S and on the instructions and dictation of PW.1 in Odiyya language, he drafted Ex.P1/Report in telugu and

SC.27/2023, Date:30-04-2026

VI Addl. District & Sessions Court, Sompeta. - 10 - the same was lodged before Mandasa P.S. Witness identified his signature on Ex.P1/Report. He also stated that he also present during inquest and also signed on inquest report and all the inquestdars opined that both A1 & A2 killed the deceased. PW.7/Nalla Bhaskar testified that he is the village elder and acted as mediator to resolve disputes within the family members. He stated that he know the PW.1 and her husband/Ananda Setti came to their village for constructing a new house. Witness stated that the deceased is having habit of consuming alcohol and also identified both A1 & A2 and stated that they also belong to their village and he further stated that both A1 & A2 and the deceased used to consume alcohol together as well as they used to quarrel in intoxicant state. He also stated that he came to know both

A1 & A2 killed the deceased by strangulating him with a towel.

PW.8/Pasupureddy Kumaraswamy stated that he know both A1 & A2, PW.1 and deceased are his in-laws, he stated that PW.4/Chudamani Setti informed him about the death of his father-in-law at about 10.00 p.m on the date of incident that both A1 & A2 killed his father-in-law at Kulaidi village junction, by strangulating him with a towel. He further testified that next day early hours, at about 04.00 a.m., he proceeded to Kulaidi village and observed that oozing blood from both ears and tongue came out of mouth from the deceased body, and also observed towel tied tightly around the neck.

PW.10/Savara Judisti stated in his deposition that he is the Sarpanch of

Chinnakosta village, he know and identified the accused and he stated that he had seen the place of offence at Kulaidi village and observed the deceased body, he also present at the time of inquest and he signed on

Ex.P2/Inquest report, he also stated that during the course of inquest, all the witnesses at that time opined that both A1 & A2 picked-up the deceased at evening hours on the date of occurrence and having dispute among them, both A1 & A2 killed the deceased. PW.11/Kondasani Kurmarao testified that

SC.27/2023, Date:30-04-2026

VI Addl. District & Sessions Court, Sompeta. - 11 - his father-in-law’s name is Lakshmarayudu, during his life time he lived at

Somepta, eking life running a tiffin centre by name Sairam Parlour. He stated that his father-in-law is haivng a white colour scooty, later he came to know that it was sold away to one Bhuvaneswar Behara. Witness identified the scooty in the court corridor. The evidence of PW.5 is the ocular evidence,

PW.2 to PW.4 and PW.6 to PW.8, which are corroborating with the evidence of PW.1, PWs.4 & 5 and all the testimonies comes under the purview of section 6 of Indian Evidence Act, i.e., things formed part of same transaction and their evidence is relevant. Though PW.1 to 4, PW.6 to PW.8 are hearsay evidence, but their evidence corroborated with the evidence of PW.5 ocular evidence and thus all witnesses are corroborated on all material aspects.

PW.9/Munjeti Kiran Kumar-VRO is the mediator accompanied with

PW.16/Inspector of Police during the course of investigation at the time of

Ex.P2/Inquest report. PW.12/Y.Urvarao is the police constable, who escorted the deceased body, shifted for autopsy from Kulaidi village to CHC,

Palasa. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor further submitted the mediators and witnesses supported the case of prosecution. PW.13/Dr.G.Triveni,

Medical Officer, who testified that she is working as Civil Assistant Surgeon at CHC, Haripuram and she received a requisition to conduct autopsy over the deceased body, by name Ananda Setti and she categorically stated that on examination of the deceased body, she found that all internal organs are congested and she issued Ex.P3/Report pending opinion and further basing on RFSL Report she issued opinion that no poisonous substance found in stomach or other organs and opined that the cause of death is due to cardiorespiratory arrest due to strangulation and asphyxia. PW.14 is the S.I of police, who registered the crime and further assisted PW.15, PW.16 during the course of investigation process and PW.17, who had spoken about

SC.27/2023, Date:30-04-2026

VI Addl. District & Sessions Court, Sompeta. - 12 - receiving of RFSL Report and filing of charge-sheet after concluding investigation.

11).The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor finally submitted that the ocular evidence of PW.5 is corroborated with the evidence of PW.1 and PW.4 who have last seen the deceased picked-up by A1 & A2 on their scooty, keeping the deceased in between them and proceeding towards Kulaidi village, the evidences of other witnesses being circumstantial witnesses corroborating with the evidence of PW.1, PW.4 and PW.5. Though the prosecution placed evidence overwhelmed, the minor discrepancies are bound to occur and no material contradictions or omissions elicited to root- out the case of prosecution. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor ultimately submitted that the prosecution has proved the guilt of both accused/A1 & A2 for the offence charged against them beyond all reasonable doubt, as such he prays the Hon’ble Court to punish the accused according to law.

12).On the other hand, the learned defence counsel vehemently submitted that the burden of proof lies on the prosecution to establish each and every allegation made against the accused/A1 & A2. The defence counsel further submits that the very genesis of the case of prosecution is false by the cross- examination of material witnesses from PW.1 to PW.4 and PW.6 to PW.8, &

PW.10. The witnesses PW.9 and PW.12 to 17, who are official witnesses, they are not direct eye witnesses to the incident and the entire case relies on circumstantial evidences.

13).The learned counsel for accused further argued that when a case majorly lies on circumstantial evidences, it should be proved beyond all reasonable doubt, the very minute link of chain of circumstances which constantly point-

SC.27/2023, Date:30-04-2026

VI Addl. District & Sessions Court, Sompeta. - 13 - out the guilt of the accused/A1 & A2 in committing the offence. The learned defence counsel further argued that prosecution has utterly failed to prove the alleged chain of circumstances as per settled law. As such, both accused are entitled for benefit of doubt and to be acquitted.

14).Now, the point for determination is :

1.Whether the death of deceased/Ananda Setti is homicidal or suicidal?

2.Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of both accused/A1 & A2, for the offence charged under section 302 r/w 34 of

Indian Penal Code, against them beyond reasonable doubt?

15). POINT :

To convict the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code, it is the burden on the prosecution to prove that the death of the deceased, i.e, Ananda Setti was homicidal due to strangulation with a towel by both accused/A1 & A2, with a common intention to kill him knowing that the act is sufficient to cause the death in ordinary course of commission.

16).Initially, to prove the death of the deceased Ananda Setti, it is required to refer the oral and documentary evidence available on record. In order to prove the guilt, the prosecution got examined PW.1 to PW.17 and got marked

Exhibited P.1 to P.15 and MO.1 to MO.6.

17).The prosecution examined the defacto complainant/PW.1/Thilothamma Setti including her family members, blood relatives and elders as PW.2 to PW.4 and PW.6 to PW.8 and PW.10 ie., PW.2/Balaram Setti who is the father of

PW.1, PW.3/Krishna Setti who is relative of the PW.1, PW.4/Chudamani

Setti who is the brother of PW.1, PW.6/Pasupureddy Bhaskar Rao is the

SC.27/2023, Date:30-04-2026

VI Addl. District & Sessions Court, Sompeta. - 14 - nearest relative of the deceased,PW.7/Nalla Bhaskar is the elder in Gowda

Gurandi Village, PW.8/Pasupureddy Kumaraswamy is the son-in-law of

PW.1 and deceased, PW.10/Savara Judisthi is the Sarpanch of Chinna

Kosta village and also examined direct witness who had seen the incident ie., PW.5/Raika Trinadh, PW.9/Munjeti Kiran Kumar, VRO who act as mediator during the course of investigation, PW.11/Kondasani Kurmarao is examined to know the details of the Scooty vehicle used by accused,

PW.13/Dr.G.Triveni who issued PM report and final opinion to the cause of the death of the deceased and PW.12/Urvarao, Police Constable,

PW.14/madhusudhana Rao, SI of police, PW.15/S.Sankar Rao, Inspector of police, PW.16/D.Ramu, Inspector of police and PW.17/G.Sankar Rao,

Inspector of police are the police officials who are present in the course of investigation are also examined.

18.The prosecution examined the defacto complainant/Thilothama Setti as PW.1 who gave a report to PW.14/SI of police. PW.1 during the course of deposing her evidence before court she testified that she married Ananda

Setti(deceased) and she is the 2nd wife to him and they were blessed with two female children and are living at Hyderabad by eking daily works. She further testified that her father gifted a site in Gowdagurandi village and to construct a house in the said site, their family returned back to Gowdaguarandi village from Hyderabad. She testified that her husband/Anandasetti (deceased) have got acquaintance with both accused who are native of Goudagurandi village and all together consume alcohol when they met.The witness further testified that her husband informed her that both accused are commenting and making rumors in the village that he is living as matrilocal person at his in laws house and useless, quarrelled when they are in intoxicant state and when her husband questioned both accused about their comments

SC.27/2023, Date:30-04-2026

VI Addl. District & Sessions Court, Sompeta. - 15 -

A.1/Konda Ramesh threatened her husband to take away his life. PW.1 further testified in her evidence that on 30.07.2022 when her husband/Ananda Setti stood on the road at about 2 PM, both A.1 and A.2 came on scooty and took her husband on the vehicle and proceeded to towards Kulaidi village. PW.1 further testified that on the same day at about 6.30 PM her brother PW4/Chudamani Setti came to her house and informed that both accused killed her husband by beating him with stone and tying towel around his neck and died oozing blood from his ears at the fields of

Savara Vasudev in Kulaidi village. PW.1 further testified that she immediately along with her father/PW.2, brother/PW.4 and other villagers went to the scene of offence and found her husband lying down oozing blood from both ears, tongue coming out from his mouth and a towel knotted around his neck.

On knowing that both accused killed her husband she gave a report/Ex.P1 to

Mandasa PS which was drafted by PW.6 in Telugu language on her dictation in Odiya. She further deposed that she was examined by police and she also present during the course of inquest over the deceased body.

During the cross examination by the learned counsel of accused PW.1 reiterated the contents of her chief examination and denied the suggestions put to her that she is deposing false evidence with regard to the disputes between her deceased husband and both accused and also denied for the suggestion that both accused never committed offence and are not having any connection with this crime and she lodged report against them basing on the public talk. During the cross examination by the learned counsel for defense nothing was elicited from the evidence of PW.1 which is useful for accused.

SC.27/2023, Date:30-04-2026

VI Addl. District & Sessions Court, Sompeta. - 16 -

19.PW.2/Balaram Setti testified that PW.1 is his daughter, the deceased/Ananda

Setti is his son in law and he knew both accused. He testified that her daughter and deceased were blessed with two daughters and they returned from Hyderabad to Goudagurandi village to construct a new house. He also testified that his son in law/Ananda Setti is habit of drinking alcohol and got acquaintance with both accused and all the three persons used to consume alcohol together. Witness further testified that he admonished his son-in-law the deceased many times not to go along with the accused, but he did not heed his words. He further testified that at about evening hours on 30.07.2022 he came to know that his son-in-law was killed by both accused

A1 & A2 at the fields of Savara Vasudevarao at Kuladi village. Witness also deposed that he went to the scene of offence and observed his son in law died oozing blood from both ears and also observed towel tied around his neck.

During the cross examination by learned counsel for accused witness reiterated the contents and denied the suggestions put to him that he is deposing false evidence against both accused, he heard false information that both accused killed his son in law. Nothing was elicited from the evidence of PW.2 by the learned counsel for accused during cross examination which is useful for accused.

20.PW.3/Krishna Setti testified that he received the death information of the deceased/Ananda Setti from PW.1,immediately he reached to Gowdagurandi village and proceeded to scene of offence along with another two persons and observed that the deceased died at the scene of offence with tying the towel around his neck and oozing blood from both ears. He deposed that he came to know that A.1 and A.2 killed the deceased but he do not know the

SC.27/2023, Date:30-04-2026

VI Addl. District & Sessions Court, Sompeta. - 17 - reasons for the incident. He further deposed that he attended for the inquest process and also for funeral of the deceased.

During the cross examination by the learned counsel for accused the witness denied suggestions put to him that he heard wrongly about the incident and the accused are not having any acquaintance with the deceased and accused are not responsible for the offence. Nothing was elicited from the evidence of PW.3 by the learned counsel for accused during cross examination which is useful for accused.

21.PW.4/Chudamani Setti testified that PW.1 is his sister and performed her marriage with Anandasetti(Deceased) and his sister is blessed with two daughters. He further deposed that his sister and deceased used to reside at

Hyderabad, they returned back to their village Gowdagurandi to construct a new house. He further testified that his brother in law/Ananda Setti (Deceased) is habituated drinking alcohol and used to go for coolie works along with both accused and all three persons used to consume alcohol together. He further testified that both accused comment his brother-in- law/Ananda Setti that he is residing at his in law’s house as matricoli person and the same was canvasing throughout the village. The witness further testified that on 27.07.2022 his brother in law/Ananda Setti went to the house of A1 and questioned about commenting him of his residing in laws house, on that the deceased used filthy language and brawled each other and the same was intimated to him by the deceased for which he admonished his brother in law. Witness further testified that on 30.07.2022 in between 4 to 5

PM he observed both accused picked up his brother in law and proceeding towards Kulaidi village while he was returning on a tractor. Witness further testified that at about 5.30 PM when he is at his home PW.5/Raika Trinadh

SC.27/2023, Date:30-04-2026

VI Addl. District & Sessions Court, Sompeta. - 18 - and LW.7/Judisthi Sahu informed him that both A1 and A.2 killed his brother- in law/Ananda Setti with towel tying around his neck at the fields of Savara

Vasudeva Rao at Kulaidi village, the witness also stated that PW.5 informed him that both accused scolded them when they tried to stop them. Witness further testified that immediately he went to the scene of offence and observed his brother-in-law/Ananda Setti died oozing blood from both ears, tongue came out from his mouth and also observed towel tied around his neck. The witness further testified that he return back to his village and informed about the incident to PW.1 and also further informed to LW.4/Setti

Ravi. He further stated that he along with PW.1 to PW.3 and other villagers went to the scene of offence. The witness further testified that both accused and deceased used to consume alcohol, having disputes between them the accused bore grudge against his brother in law and killed him at the scene of offence. Witness also stated that he along with his family members and elders were present during the course of inquest and all opined that both accused killed his brother-in-law Ananda Setti.

During the cross examination by the learned counsel for accused the witness denied suggestions put to him that both accused did not had any acquaintance with the deceased and consume alcohol together and also denied for other suggestions. Nothing was elicited from the evidence of PW.4 by the learned counsel for accused during cross examination which is useful

for accused.

22.PW.5/Raika Trinadh testified that he know both A1 and A2 who are residents of Gowdagurandi Village and also identified them present in the court hall. He further testified that on 30.07.2022 at about 5 P.M. when he is going to purchase items for his business purpose from Chinna Kosta village to Ambati

SC.27/2023, Date:30-04-2026

VI Addl. District & Sessions Court, Sompeta. - 19 -

Kambaram village on his bike, while he is crossing the Kulaidi village, he found A1 and A2 quarreling with the deceased and when he tried to admonish them to stop, meanwhile LW.7/Judisti Sahu came on his bike and he also joined with him and tried to separate both A1 and A2 from beating the deceased. Witness testified that both accused scolded the deceased using filthy language in Odiya. Witness also testified that both accused and deceased are intoxicant stage. Witness further testified that he observed that

A1 knotted towel around the neck of the deceased and A2 caught hold the hands of deceased. The witness testified that after observing that the deceased fell down, both accused ran away, further witness testified that he along with LW.7 reached Gowdagurandi village and informed PW.4 who is the brother in law of the deceased about the incident. He also stated that

PW.4 along with family members and villagers immediately rushed to the scene of offence. He further deposed that he had stated the facts of the case to the police and he also present during the course of inquest. He further testified that due to disputes between accused and deceased, the deceased was killed by both A1 and A2.

During the cross examination by the learned counsel for accused the witness reiterated his chief examination contents and denied for suggestions put to him that he did not witnessed the incident and A1 tied towel around the neck of the deceased and A2 caught hold the hands of the deceased and accused are no way concern with this crime and he is deposing false evidence on the instructions of police. Nothing was elicited from the evidence of PW.5 by the learned counsel for accused during cross examination which is useful for accused.

SC.27/2023, Date:30-04-2026

VI Addl. District & Sessions Court, Sompeta. - 20 -

23.PW.6/ Pasupureddy Bhaskar Rao testified that the deceased Ananada Setti is his brother’s father in law. He testified that on 30.07.2022 he received information from his brother/PW.8/Pasupureddy Kumaraswamy through phone about the death of the deceased that A1 and A2 killed by knotting a towel around the neck of deceased and thrown in bushes (donka) beside road. Witness further testified that on 31.07.2022 in early hours he reached to Gowdagurandi village along with his relatives and visited the scene of offence where the dead body is present. Further he testified that he along with PW.1 and relatives went to Mandasa Police Station and up on the instructions of PW.1 he drafted Ex.P.1/report on which he signed and also stated that he also present at the time of inquest over the deceased body and all opined that both accused killed the deceased.

During the cross examination by the learned counsel for accused the witness denied suggestions put to him that he did not scribe Ex.P.1 report as well as went to the scene of offence and wontedly on the instructions of police he is deposing false evidence and also denied suggestion that the accused are no way concern with the offence as well as what he heard with regard to the offence. Nothing was elicited from the evidence of PW.6 by the learned counsel for accused during cross examination which is useful for accused.

24.PW.7/Nalla Bhaskar Rao testified that he is elder in the village and used to act as village elder to solve petty disputes occurred in between the families.

He testified that he knows PW.1 and her husband who came and living in

Gowdagurandi village. He also testified that the deceased/Anandasetti is having habit of drinking alcohol and both A1 and A2 along with deceased used to consume alcohol together and all three persons quarrel among themselves in their intoxicant state. He also testified that he came to know

SC.27/2023, Date:30-04-2026

VI Addl. District & Sessions Court, Sompeta. - 21 - that the deceased died and both accused killed the deceased by tying towel around his neck.

During the cross examination he denied for the suggestion that both accused are no way concern with the offence and it is false what he heard about the offence. Nothing was elicited from the evidence of PW.7 by the learned counsel for accused which is useful for accused.

25.PW.8/Pasupureddy Kumar Swamy testified that he knew both accused and identified them. He further testified that PW.1 is his mother-in-law and deceased/Ananda Setti is his father in law. He stated that PW.4/Chudamani

Setti informed him about the death of the deceased at about 10 PM on the date of incident that both accused killed his father-in-law/Ananda Setti at

Kulaidi village by tying a towel around his neck. He further testified that on the next day he went to the scene of offence at Kulaidi village and observed the deceased body oozing blood from both ears, tongue came out from the mouth and also observed towel tied tightly around the neck of the deceased body. He stated that he informed the incident to his brother

PW.6/Pasupureddy Bhaskar Rao.

During the cross examination by the learned counsel for accused the witness denied suggestions put to him that PW.4 falsely stated about the incident that A1 and A2 committed murder of deceased and he is deposing false evidence. Nothing was elicited from the evidence of PW.8 by the learned counsel for accused during cross examination which is useful for accused.

26.PW.9/Munjeti Kiran Kumar, VRO who worked at Bhogapuram village,

Mandasa Mandal at the time of incident identified both accused and testified that on 31.07.2022 Tahsildar, Mandasa telephoned him and instructed him to

SC.27/2023, Date:30-04-2026

VI Addl. District & Sessions Court, Sompeta. - 22 - attend before S.I of police/PW.14 on that he along with LW.14/Jeeru Tulasi

Das proceeded to Mandasa PS and from there they both accompanied with

PW.15/Inspector of Police, Kasibugga rural circle and proceeded towards

Tikkalapada village. Witness testified that they found a dead body in the bushes adjacent to the road in Tikkalapada village, deposed that they also found one towel tied tightly around the neck of the deceased body and also found injury on the neck. He testified that in his presence police removed one silver colour ring from finger, and also observed black and red threads tied to the right hand wrist, also observed moles on the chest and stomach, also observed contusions on both hands as well as on the neck right below the right ear, collected all incriminating material and seized the articles, towel under the cover of scene observation report/Ex.P6 on which he along with

LW.14 attested. Further witness testified that he also presented during the course of inquest over the deceased body along with blood relatives, village elders and police officials, all villagers and blood relatives opined that the deceased was killed by both accused with tying towel around the neck of the deceased and the inquest procedure was reported as Ex.P2 which was drafted by this witness under the instructions of PW.15. Witness further testified that on 02.08.2022 he along with LW.14 proceeded to Mandasa PS on the instructions of their Tahsildar and from there accompanied with

PW.15/Inspector of police and while proceeding towards Gowdagurandi

Village, they observed two persons trying to escape on their scooty seeing the Jeep at Sasanam junction road. The witness testified that both persons were apprehended by police and on enquiry both persons revealed their names and particulars and also stated that they used to consume liquor along with the deceased and due to disputes both accused hatched a plan to take away the life of deceased and on that both accused took the deceased on a scooty and picked up quarrel at the scene of offence on the date of

SC.27/2023, Date:30-04-2026

VI Addl. District & Sessions Court, Sompeta. - 23 - incident. Witness further testified that they both stated that two persons tried to intervene to stop the quarrel between them and deceased and on that both accused insulted them and warned not to interfere with the dispute. Witness further testified that both accused gave statement that they killed the deceased using towel tying around the deceased neck, after deciding the deceased dead left the scene of offence place by taking away the mobile of deceased/Ananda Setti. Witness further testified that both accused stated that they placed the deceased mobile under a tree and further they went and hidden at Orissa state switching off their mobiles. Witness testified that police seized mobile from possession of A1 and both the suspected persons are examined by police individually and recorded their statement/Ex.P.9 and witness stated he along with LW.14 attested on it. Witness further testified that the complainant police PW.15 taken both A1 and A2 into custody and seized scooty. Witness further testified that as per the statement given by both A1 and A2 they proceeded to Gowdaguarandi Village and discovered the deceased mobile placed by the accused under a tree, and seized/MO.5.

During the cross examination of PW.9 by the learned counsel for accused the witness stated that he did not received any written instructions or oral instructions from Tahsildar and also stated that unable to remember the exact place of offence village, he cannot say the length and breadth of the towel and he also stated that he cannot say names of persons who were present at the time of inquest. He identified his signature and admitted that he scribed the inquest report/Ex.P.2 and also identified the signatures on other reports. He denied for the suggestion put to him that he never accompanied with police at the time of scene observation, inquest, seizure of mobile and at the time of apprehended the accused and also further denied for the suggestion that he deposed false evidence on the instructions of

SC.27/2023, Date:30-04-2026

VI Addl. District & Sessions Court, Sompeta. - 24 - police and both accused were not concern with this crime. Nothing was elicited from the evidence of PW.9 by the learned counsel for accused during cross examination which is useful for accused.

27.PW.10/Savara Judisthi testified that he is the Sarpanch of Chinna Kosta

Village, he testified that he knows the accused and identified them in court as well as he testified that the deceased /Ananda Setti died and he went to the place of offence at Kulaidi village and observed the deceased body. He also testified that he also present at the time of inquest over the deceased body and also signed on Ex.P2/Inquest report. He testified that all the panchayatdars opined that both accused picked up the deceased in evening hours on the date of occurrence of offence, due to disputes among them they killed the deceased at the place of offence in Kulaidi village.

During the cross examination by the learned counsel for accused the witness denied suggestions put to him that he heard false information that both accused killed the deceased having disputes among them and also denied that he attested on Ex.P.2/Inquest report on the instructions of police without knowing about the case. Nothing was elicited from the evidence of

PW.10 by the learned counsel for accused during cross examination which is useful for accused.

28.PW.11/Kondasani Kurmarao testified that his father-in-law name is

Laxmarayudu, during his life time he lived at Sompeta by running a tiffin centre by name Sairam Parlour. He testified that his father-in-law own a white colour scooty and later he came to know that his father-in-law sold away the said scooty to one Bhuvaneswar Behara. He testified that police enquired him with regard to the scooty and on that he stated the police that the said

SC.27/2023, Date:30-04-2026

VI Addl. District & Sessions Court, Sompeta. - 25 - scooty was sold to Bhuvaneswar Behara and its registration is not transferred. Witness identified the scooty which is kept in court corridor.

During the cross examination by the learned counsel for accused the witness denied suggestions put to him that his father-in-law never sold the scooty to Bhuvaneswar and he is deposing false evidence on the instructions of police. Nothing was elicited from the evidence of PW.11 by the learned counsel for accused during cross examination which is useful for accused.

29.PW.12/Urvarao, Police Constable testified that on 31.07.2022 at about 3 PM he escorted the deceased body while shifting for autopsy from Kulaidi village to CHC, Palasa on the instructions of PW.16/Inspector of police. He testified that he handed over the deceased body after completion of autopsy.The counsel for the accused did not cross examine this witness. Hence cross examination of this witness is treated as nil.

30.PW.13/Dr.G.Triveni, Medical Officer testified that she is working as Civil

Assistant Surgeon at CHC, Haripuram. She received a requisition to conduct autopsy over the deceased body by name Ananda Setti and in her examination at 3.30 PM she observed the following external injuries.

1) Ligature seen encircling whole neck below the level of thyroid measuring 25x2x1/2 cm depth in red colour

2) A Small abrasion measuring 1/2 x1/2 over right hand wrist

3) An abrasion below right ear in red in colour

4) A small abrasion over left thumb

5) An abrasion measuring 3x1/2 cm over right ear tinna

6) A small abrasion ½ x ½ cm over left grater toe

SC.27/2023, Date:30-04-2026

VI Addl. District & Sessions Court, Sompeta. - 26 -

Witness testified that in her observation she found the deceased mouth opened with swollen and congested tongue, both lips are swollen and congested and observed bleeding from both ears and nose. On dissection all internal organs are congested and further collected visra for the purpose of forensic test and issued Ex.P3/Postmortem report pending opinion and further after receiving RFSL report on 29.08.2022 issued final opinion/Ex.P4 that no poisonous substances found in stomach, intestines and other organs and opined that the cause of the death is due to cardiorespiratory arrest due to strangulation and asphyxia.

During cross examination by the learned counsel for accused witness testified that the injuries found below the thyroid region is mostly by strangulation and denied for suggestion that it is possible to die by way of strangulation when any person commit suicide and also denied for the suggestion that abrasions on the wrist may not cause by holding the hands but those abrasions will cause when in contacted rough surface.

31.PW.14/Y.Madhusudhana Rao who is working as SI of police and in his chief examination he stated that on 31.07.2022 while he was present at police station, Mandasa PS at about 8 A.M., PW.1 came to police station and presented a report/Ex.P1, basing on the report he registered a case

Ex.P5/FIR in Cr.No.94/2022 under section 302 r/w 34 of IPC against both accused. Later he submitted original FIR to Hon’ble AJFCM, Sompeta and copies to the concerned authorities. Being grave offence he informed to

PW.15/Inspector of police, Kasibugga Rural Circle and handed over the CD for investigation.

During cross examination he stated that Ex.P1 is drafted in station premises and denied for the suggestion that Ex.P1 is drafted on his

SC.27/2023, Date:30-04-2026

VI Addl. District & Sessions Court, Sompeta. - 27 - instructions and also denied that he registered false case on false report given by PW.1.

32.PW.15/ S.Sankar Rao, Inspector of police, Incharge Kasibugga Rural Circle testified in his chief examination that on 30.07.2022 PW.14 gave information about the incident, immediately he proceeded to Mandasa PS and received

Ex.P5/FIR and further informed to the clues team and visited to scene of offence. He examined PW.1 and recorded his statement, further secured mediators and inspected the crime scene with the help of clues team situated at the fields of Savara Vasudeva at Kulaidi village adjacent to the BT road.

Witness seized MO.1/Towel which is tied around the neck of the deceased, obtained photographs/Ex.P7and prepared rough sketch/Ex.P8, collected incriminating material like blood stained swabs and their control and blood stained soil and its control under the cover of Ex.P6/Scene observation report. Further witnesses PW.1 to PW.6 and LW.4, LW.7 were secured, examined and recorded their statements. Later he conducted inquest under the cover of Ex.P2/inquest report and shifted the body to CHC, Haripuram for autopsy.

During the cross examination he denied the suggestion that the offence was committed in the jurisdiction of Orissa state, he was politically instigated to conduct the investigation though the offence committed in

Orissa state and also denied to suggestion that both accused are no way concerned with crime and he conducted table investigation without visiting the scene of offence.

33.PW.16/D.Ramu, Inspector of Police testified that he received CD from PW.15 and continued investigation, and further on credible information about the accused he secured the presence of mediators and proceeded towards

SC.27/2023, Date:30-04-2026

VI Addl. District & Sessions Court, Sompeta. - 28 -

Sasanam village along with his staff and when he reached to Cheepi village

Junction two persons coming on scooty tried to escape on seeing the police and with the help of staff apprehended them and examined them in the presence of mediators. They confessed about the offence which they committed, the scooty/M.O2 was seized, as well as mobile phones present with A1 and A2 are seized as MO.3 and MO.4 under the cover of Ex.P9 and got prepared rough sketch/Ex.P10 and photographed the seizure process under Ex.P11. Further they proceeded to Gowdagurandi village near Pedda veedhi CC road, discovered mobile/MO.5 of deceased under a tree as per the information given by accused no 1 in the presence of mediator under the cover of Ex.P12, got prepared rough sketch under Ex.P13. Then both accused were arrested and on the next day sent them for judicial custody.

Further the witness secured the witness of PW.7 and LW.5, examined and recorded their statements on 04.08.2022. He secured the presence of PW.8 examined and recorded his statement and on the same day he sent requisition for obtaining CDR’s history for the seized mobiles, later obtained details of MO.2 from MVI, Palasa and on knowing that owner of the vehicle

Laxmarayudu dead, examined PW.11 the son-in-law of Laxmarayudu owner of M.O2 and recorded his statement. Witness received PM report/Ex.P.3 and on 14.08.2022 he forwarded MO.1 to RFSL and on 17.08.2022 he sent PW.1 & PW.5 before Hon’ble JFCM, Narasannapeta for the purpose of recording 164 Cr.P.C. statements.

During cross examination by learned counsel for accused witness denied to the suggestion that MO.2 is no way concern to A2 and also for the suggestions that accused no.1 did not taken MO.5 from deceased and further no discovery of MO.5 on the statement given by accused. He denied for the suggestion that all the exhibits were planted for the purpose of this case and

SC.27/2023, Date:30-04-2026

VI Addl. District & Sessions Court, Sompeta. - 29 - both accused were no way concern with the case and they were falsely implicated.

34.PW.17/G.Sankar Rao, Inspector of police testified that on 14.11.2022 he took up investigation in this case and on 15.11.2022 he received report from

RFSL/Ex.P14, and on 29.08.2022 PW.15 received RFSL report/Ex.P15 and further witness stated that his predecessor seized the chappals of deceased/MO.6 at the scene of offence and the same were identified by him, after verifying and receiving all reports and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against both accused.

During the cross examination by the learned counsel for accused he denied for the suggestion that accused are no way concern with the offence and he filed charge sheet against the accused with all false allegations.

Appreciation Of Evidence:

35.In the present case, PW.5/Raika Trinadh is the eye witness to the incident and the prosecution predominantly banks on the testimony of eye witness

PW.5 and also the testimonies of PW.1 to PW.4, PW.6 to PW.17. The prosecution also rely on the documentary evidence ie., Ex.P1 to Ex.P15 and material objects MO. 1 to MO.6.

PW.5/Raika Trinadh is the eye witness to the incident. It is vehemently subjected by the Addl. Public Prosecutor that PW.5 is one of the eye witness supported the case of prosecution and his evidence is consistent and corroborated with the evidence of other witnesses. PW.5/Raika Trinadh in his chief examination deposed that he know both A1 and A2, who are residents of Gowdagurandi Village and also identified them in the court hall. He further testified that on the date of incident i.e., 30.07.2022 at about 5 p.m.when he is proceeding to Ambatikambaram village on his bike to purchase items for his business purpose from his village Chinna Kosta, he observed both A1

SC.27/2023, Date:30-04-2026

VI Addl. District & Sessions Court, Sompeta. - 30 - and A2 quarreling with the deceased by beating him, meanwhile

LW.7/Judisthi Sahu also came there and when they both tried to stop the quarrel both accused scolded PW.5 and LW.7. PW.5 further testified that the accused scolded the deceased in Odiya language “ Mangya sola mangya sola” PW. 5 also stated in his evidence that both accused and deceased are in intoxicant state at that time, and also observed that first accused knotted the towel around the neck of the deceased and strangulating him, whereas second accused caught hold the hands of deceased and later the deceased fell down. The witness PW.5 further testified that both accused ranaway, immediately he along with LW.7 went to Gowdagurandi village and informed to PW.4/Chudamani Setti who is the brother in law of the deceased about the incident happened. Witness further deposed that immediately PW.4, family members along with villagers rushed to the scene of offence. He stated that due to disputes between accused and deceased both accused killed the deceased, but he does not know the reason for disputes between them. On the next day police examined him and recorded his statement.

I have carefully examined statement under section 161 Cr.P.C and contrasted the same with the testimony of PW.5 and on careful scrutiny of the same I have found that PW.5 is the independent witness consistent with regard to the material crux of the incident deposed by him and the testimony of PW.5 is not bristled with any material improvements, omissions and contradictions.

The accused counsel tried to impress upon the mind of the court that the witness PW.5 did not witnessed the incident but he failed as the eye witness PW.5 reiterated what he had stated in his statement before police as well as in his chief examination as he had seen the incident along with LW.7.

The testimony of PW.5 gave such impression to this court that he is natural

SC.27/2023, Date:30-04-2026

VI Addl. District & Sessions Court, Sompeta. - 31 - witness who deposed what he had actually witnessed as there are no additions against the accused. It is the specific evidence of PW.5 that he know both accused who are resident of Gowdagurandi village and it is a matter of sense that in villages the people and families are in limited and are known to each other even when they are residing in adjacent villages as they come across each other in day to day life. Even the evidence of PW.5 which was elicited by the defense in his cross examination establishes that he started from his village Chinna Kosta to get sundry items for his business and while he is proceeding to Ambatikambaram village and when he is crossing Kulaidi village there he found both accused are quarrelling and beating the deceased and witnessed the subsequent events of the incident along with LW.7 at the scene of offence. The plain reading and scrutiny of chief and cross examination of PW.5 establishes his presence at the scene of offence and he had seen both accused beating the deceased and later strangulated the deceased with a towel/MO.1. The evidence of PW.5 stating that “I came to know that due to disputes between them the deceased was killed by both accused but I do not know the reason for dispute between them,” and his presence there at the scene of offence while he is proceeding to

Ambatikambaram village passes the test of naturality and probability of the presence of witness and his credible evidence.

In this context it is pertinent to mention that it is settled law that it is the quality of evidence that counts but not the quantity of evidence and the sole testimony of single eye witness can be relied upon for convicting the accused for the offence with which he was charged, the solitary testimony of single eye witness inspiring the confidence of the court that the witness deposed true facts with regard to the case.

SC.27/2023, Date:30-04-2026

VI Addl. District & Sessions Court, Sompeta. - 32 -

In Madhab Roy Vs State of W.B., AIR 1975 SC 255, the Hon’ble Supreme Court

held that: “The question of credibility of a witness has primarily to be decided by referring to his evidence and finding out as to how the witness has fared in the cross-examination and what impression is created by his evidence, taken in the context of other facts of the case.”

In Nana Ramchandra V State of Maharastra, 1984, Crl.LJ.852, the Hon’ble

Bombay High Court held:

“In assessing the credibility of any witnesses, the main considerations are (1) his integrity (2) his ability and consistency with each other (3) his conformity of his testimony with experience and his corroboration by prompt, FIR, medical evidence, consistent statement and other collateral circumstances.”

The proposition of law enunciated in the above cases as to the credibility and trustworthiness of witness applies to the testimony of PW.5 the eye witness to the incident in this case.

36).Now when look into the evidence of PW.1 to PW.4, PW.6, PW.8 who are the wife, father-in-law, son in law, brother in law of the deceased. It is the contention of the defense that PW.1 to 4, PW.6 and PW.8 are being the close blood relatives of the deceased are interested witness as such their testimony should not be based for convicting the accused. In this context it is apt to look at the settled law about the evidentiary value of testimony of interested/relative witness.

In the case of State of Maharashtra V. Ahmed Shaikh Babajan (Supreme

Court) and others 2009 (1) ALD (Crl.) 239 (SC), their lordships of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court held that:

The testimony of interested/relative witness cannot be discarded on sole ground of interest of such witness in prosecution. His evidence, however, must be scrutinized carefully. Court may look for some assurance, from independent

SC.27/2023, Date:30-04-2026

VI Addl. District & Sessions Court, Sompeta. - 33 - evidence, circumstantial or direct, before finding accused guilty on basis of his interested testimony.”

In the case of M.S.T.Dalbir Kour Vs. State of Punjab, reported in AIR 1977

SC 472 = 1977 Crl.L.J. 273, the Honourable Supreme Court of India while dealing

with the evidence of a close relative, held that; “A close relative, who is a very natural witness in the circumstances of a case, cannot be regarded as an interested witnesses.” 37).With the above proposition of law now when we look into the testimonies of

PW.1 to 4,6 and 8.

PW.1/Thilothama Setti who is the defacto complainant, the wife of deceased deposed in her chief examination that their family returned back to

Gowdagurandi village and residing at her parents house for the purpose of constructing a new house in the gifted site by her father. She also stated that both A1 and A2 are having acquaintance with her deceased husband and all three persons used to consume alcohol and quarrel each other in intoxicant state. She also stated that her deceased husband informed her that both A1 and A2 are commenting him that he is residing as matrilocal person and the same was canvased in the village and when her husband questioned them

A1 threatened that he will take away the life of her husband. PW.1 stated that on 30.07.2022 when her husband stood on road at about 2 p.m., both A1 and

A2 came on scooty, picked her husband and proceeded towards Kulaidi village. She further stated that at about 6.30 PM her brother/PW.4/Chudamani Setti came to her house and informed her that both

A1 and A2 killed her husband strangulating him with a towel at Kulaidi village near Savara Vasudev fields, and further she along with her brother and family members and other villagers went and observed her husband died strangulating with a towel at the scene of offence. On the next day she gave

SC.27/2023, Date:30-04-2026

VI Addl. District & Sessions Court, Sompeta. - 34 -

Ex.P1 report to complainant police reporting that due to disputes both A1 and

A2 beat and killed her husband by strangulating him.

PW.2/Balaram Setti who is the father of PW.1 stated that his daughter got married with the deceased and they were blessed with two daughters, living at their house coming from Hyderabad to construct a new house. He further stated that his son-in-law/the deceased is having acquaintance with both A1 and A2 and all together roam in the village consuming alcohol. He also stated that, he admonished his son-in-law (deceased) not to continue with A1 and A2. He also stated that he came to know that the both accused quarreled with the deceased, but he do not know the reason for dispute. He stated that on the date of incident the deceased was killed by both A1 and A2 at fields of

Savara Vasudev in Kulaidi village.

PW.3/Krishna Setti stated that he came to know the death of the deceased through PW.1 and immediately he went to the scene of offence and observed the deceased died lying down strangulating with a towel , oozing blood from ears and tongue came out from his mouth. He stated that he came to know that A1 and A2 killed the deceased and he do not know the reason for the incident and he attended at the time of inquest and funeral.

PW.4/Chudamani Setti is the brother of PW.1 and brother in law of deceased who testified that on 27.07.2022 his brother-in-law/the deceased went to the house of A1 and questioned him about comments canvasing in the village that he is living as matrilocal person and on that quarrel occurred in between the accused and deceased with regard to comment by the accused about his matrilocal stay at his laws house and on that the deceased “Nenu naa attha varintlo untunnanu nenu mee amma daggara padukunnana” on that they

SC.27/2023, Date:30-04-2026

VI Addl. District & Sessions Court, Sompeta. - 35 - brawled with each other and further he admonished his brother in law when he informed to him. PW.4 further testified that on 30.07.2022 in between 4 to 5 PM he observed A1 and A2 along with the deceased proceeding towards

Kulaidi village on a scooty and at about 5.30 PM, PW.5 and LW.7 informed him about the incident that both A1 and A2 killed the deceased strangulating him with a towel. Immediately, he rushed to the scene of offence and observed the deceased dead lying down having towel around his neck, oozing blood from both ears and tongue came out from his mouth at the scene of offence which is at the fields of Savara Vasudevarao at Kulaidi village. He came to her sister’s/PW.1 house and informed to her about the incident, further he along with PW.1 relatives and other villagers went to the scene of offence. He also stated that the accused bore grudge on deceased and killed him strangulating with a towel at the scene of offence.

PW.6/Pasupureddy Bhaskar Rao testified that he received information from his brother PW.8 who is the son-in-law of PW.1 and deceased and

PW.8 informed to him that A1 and A2 killed the deceased strangulating with a towel around his neck and on that on 31.07.2022 he reached to the scene of offence along with relatives and villagers where the deceased body is present and further on the instructions of PW.1 he drafted Ex.P1 report in

Telugu and also signed on it.

PW.8/Pasupureddy Kumar Swamy testified that he is the son-in-law of

PW.1 and deceased he came to know about the death of the deceased through PW.4 at about 10 PM and immediately he informed to PW.6 his brother and on the next day of the incident in the early hours he visited the scene of offence along with his relatives and villagers and observed the

SC.27/2023, Date:30-04-2026

VI Addl. District & Sessions Court, Sompeta. - 36 - deceased lying dead oozing blood from both ears and tongue came out from his mouth and also observed towel tied around his neck.

38).I have carefully examined the 161 Cr.P.C. statements of PW.1 to 4 , PW.6 and PW.8 and their evidence before the court, upon which I found that with regard to the material crux of the incident PW.1 to PW.4, 6 and 8 are consisting except the minor omissions which are not material admittedly

PW.1 to 4, 6 and 8 are not the eye witnesses to the incident but they were rushed to the scene of offence immediately after knowing about the incident.

PW.1, 2 and PW.4 being the wife, father-in-law and brother in law of the deceased are the natural witness to rush to the scene of offence immediately after having come to know of the incident. Being close relatives this court do not think PW.1, 2 and 4 would spare the real culprit if any as alleged by the defense that accused was falsely implicated. The evidences of PW.1, PW.2 and PW.4 being consistence and established the motive for the offence besides disclosing the subsequent facts to the incident. In this context it is pertinent to mentioned here that in a case which rests on circumstantial evidence the motive for committing offence plays an important role, but in case where the case is having direct eye witness the motive for the offence would become insignificant. However, when the prosecution alleges a particular incident with a motive it is on the court to see whether the prosecution has proved the same.

39).In this case, the motive for the offence is the accused No.1 commenting the deceased that he is living at his in laws house as matrilocal person, and the same was canvased in the village. On 27.07.2022 when the deceased went to the house of A1 and questioned about commenting him on that both A1 and deceased disputed and brawled each other, there

SC.27/2023, Date:30-04-2026

VI Addl. District & Sessions Court, Sompeta. - 37 - the accused threatened the deceased/Ananda Setti that he will take away his life. Further the accused bore grudge on the deceased and on the date of incident both A1 and A2 killed the deceased strangulating him with a towel. It is clear that when the deceased questioned the accused No1 at his home on 27.07.2022 a quarrel was taken place and they both pushed each other and due to the same the accused developed the grudge against the deceased and keeping the same in mind both accused A1 and A2 killed the deceased strangulating him with a towel/MO.1. The testimonies of PW.1 to 4, PW.6 and

PW.8 remained unshaken during the cross examination by learned counsel

for accused not only with regard to the motive for the offence, but also the

immediate subsequent facts of the incident that falls under Resgeste under

Section 6 of Indian Evidence Act. Therefore, the evidence of PW.1 to PW.4,

PW.6 and PW.8 are admissible under section 6 of Indian Evidence Act.

Section 6: Relevancy of facts forming facts of same transaction.

Facts which, though not in issue, are so connected with a fact in issue as to form part of the same transaction, are relevant whether they occurred at the same time and place or at different times and places.

Illustration-(a) A is accused of the murder of B by beating him. Whatever was said or done by A or B or the by-standers at the beating, or so shortly before or after it is to form part of the transaction, is a relevant fact.

From the above illustration and provision of law of section 6 of Indian

Evidence Act it is clear that whatever that was informed to PW.1 to PW.4,

PW.6 and PW.8 and whatever the witness acted upon the information shortly after the incident becomes part of the incident as such the same is relevant fact. Section 6 of Indian Evidence Act is an exception to hearsay evidence as such the evidence of PW.1 to 4, PW.6 and 8 are admissible and the same

SC.27/2023, Date:30-04-2026

VI Addl. District & Sessions Court, Sompeta. - 38 - corroborate with the testimony of PW.5 one of the eye witness with regard to the incident.

40).Now when look into medical evidence to see whether it corroborates the testimony of PW.5 of the eye witness to the incident.

PW.13/Dr.G.Triveni testified that on her observation she found the deceased mouth opened with swollen and congested tongue, both lips are swollen and congested and also observed bleeding from both ears and nose. On dissection all internal organs are congested and further collected visra for the purpose of forensic test and issued Ex.P3/Postmortem report and further after receiving RFSL report on 29.08.2022 issued final opinion/Ex.P4 that “no poisonous substances found in stomach, intestines and in other organs, opined that the cause of the death is due to cardiorespiratory arrest due to strangulation and asphyxia”.

If the above witness evidence is scrutinized with Ex.P3 carefully the same corroborates the testimony of PW.5 the eye witness to the incident as such the testimony of PW.5 is strengthened not only the medical evidence but with also testimonies of PW.1 to 4, PW.6 to PW.8 that both accused committed the offence as state, as such the same can be based for deciding the guilt of the accused for the offence with which they are charged.

41).PW.9 who is the mediator for Ex.P2, his evidence is very much corroborating with the evidence of investigating officer/PW.15 on all material aspects with regard to the observation of scene of offence, conducting inquest , arrest of the accused, recording confession statement of accused/Ex.P9 and seizure of MO.1 to MO.6.

SC.27/2023, Date:30-04-2026

VI Addl. District & Sessions Court, Sompeta. - 39 - 42).PW.10 is the Sarpanch of Chinna Kosta village, elder who testified that he know accused and stated that he observed the deceased body at Kulaidi village and present at the time of inquest and stated that both accused killed the deceased in evening hours on the date of incident with disputes among them. PW.11 evidence is with regard to the scooty used by both accused and he testified that the said scooty is in the name of his father-in - law who sold away to Bhuvaneswar Behara/A2 but the ownership of the scooty is not transferred, and identified the scooty in the court corridor.

43).PW.14 is the SI of police, his evidence is clear that he registered Ex.P5 basing on the report Ex.P1 and PW.15, PW.16 and PW.17 who are investigating officers, their evidences are clear and categorical from the time of registration of First Information Report till filing of charge sheet on all aspects, no motive was attributed to them to depose against the accused as they are official witnesses. Hence their evidence can be taken into consideration. The inconsistencies and infirmities and latches pointed out by the learned defense counsel are very minor and they will not affect the case of prosecution in any manner. Hence the defense counsel contentions does not taken in any manner.

44).Ex.P15 is the FSL report shows that on examination of pieces of stomach, intestine, pieces of liver, spleen and kidney, pieces of Heart and lungs analyzed, but no poisonous substance is found in them. Thus Ex.P15, Ex.P3 and Ex.P4 also corroborates the material prosecution witnesses particularly with the evidence of PW.5 the eye witness. The seizure of MO.1 towel used for strangulating at the time of commission of offence corroborating with the evidence of PW.13 that the cause of death due to cardiorespiratory arrest

SC.27/2023, Date:30-04-2026

VI Addl. District & Sessions Court, Sompeta. - 40 - due to strangulation and asphyxia which is pointing out the guilt to the accused strongly.

45)As seen from the cross examination of material witnesses by the counsel for accused took a defense that both accused are implicated in this case falsely.

In this context it is pertinent to mention that it is settled law when the defense of accused is plea of false implication they has to lay down a strong foundation in the cross examination of prosecution witnesses or they have to adduce defense evidence for strengthening their plea of false implication. But in this case the counsel for accused during his cross examination except making bald suggestions to the prosecution witnesses as they are deposing false evidence against the accused, did not elicited nothing to probabilise their plea of false implication. It is also other defense by the counsel for accused that both accused are innocent and they did not commit the offence, but the same was proved false with the evidence of

PW.5 who is direct witness and corroborating with the circumstantial witnesses PW.1 to PW.4, PW.6 to PW.8 and P.W.10.

46).Having careful examination the material born on record in this case the motive for the offence is proved, common intention of both the accused is also proved by the prosecution as there were no inconsistencies in between the testimony of eye witness, interested/relative witness, independent witness,medical witness and official witnesses examined in the case with corroborating with the testimony of ocular evidence PW.5 the independent eye witness to the incident, which inspires the confidence of this court that all witnesses evidence is corroborating with each other.

SC.27/2023, Date:30-04-2026

VI Addl. District & Sessions Court, Sompeta. - 41 -

47)Thus having scrutinize the whole evidence and in view of aforesaid discussion, this court have no hesitation to hold that prosecution had proved the guilt of both accused for the offence punishable under section 302 r/w 34 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt, that the accused with previous disputes had quarrel with the deceased beat the deceased and strangulated him with

MO.1/Towel and caused the death of deceased. Thus the prosecution proves its case beyond all reasonable doubt, as such both accused are liable to be punished for the offence punishable under section 302 r/w 34 of IPC.

Accordingly the points framed are answered.

In the result, both Accused no. 1 and Accused no 2 are found guilty for the offences punishable under section 302 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code, accordingly they are convicted under section 235(2) Cr.P.C.

T yped to my dictation by the typist, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 30 th day of April, 2026.

Digitally Signed by

KISHORE BABU KODURU

KISHORE BABU

Date: 2026.04.30 19:26:41 +0530

KODURU

VI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Sompeta.

HEARING ON QUANTUM OF SENTENCE OF THE ACCUSED:

Both accused are questioned with regard to quantum of sentence individually. Their submission is recorded on a separate sheet.

During hearing of quantum of sentence, the accused no 1 submitted that he is having mother, wife and daughter and requested to take lenient view. During hearing of quantum of sentence the accused no 2 submitted that he is also having mother and requested to take lenient view.

SC.27/2023, Date:30-04-2026

VI Addl. District & Sessions Court, Sompeta. - 42 -

The defence counsel on behalf of accused submitted that both accused hailed from poor family, and their families are depending on them. Without the presence of accused they will suffer, hence prays to consider and show lenient view.

Though they pleaded to take lenient view, taking into consideration the gravity of offence and nature of crime, and manner in which the both accused committed the offence, both accused are sentenced to undergo “imprisonment for life” for the offence under section 302 r/w 34 of IPC and also to pay fine of

Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only), in default of payment of fine, to suffer

Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months. The remand period of the both accused shall be given set-off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. MO.1, MO.6 and unmarked property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. MO.3 &

MO.4 shall be confiscated to the State after expiry of appeal time. MO.2 & MO.5 shall be returned to the person concerned under property identification and acknowledgment after the period of appeal time.

Both accused are informed about their right to prefer an appeal against the judgment before the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh is within 30 days from the date of this judgment.

Both accused are enquired about their means to engage Advocate to defend their case before the Hon’ble Appellate Court and also informed about the availability of free Legal Aid before the Hon’ble Appellate Court. Free copy of judgment is furnished to both accused. Digitally Signed by

KISHORE BABU KODURU

KISHORE BABU

Date: 2026.04.30 19:28:04 +0530

KODURU VI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Sompeta.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

SC.27/2023, Date:30-04-2026

VI Addl. District & Sessions Court, Sompeta. - 43 -

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution : For Defence: PW.1 : Thilothama Setti,Nil. PW.2 : Balaram Setti, PW.3 : Krishna setti PW.4 : Chudamani Setti PW.5 : Raika Trinadh PW.6 : Pasupureddy Bhaskar Rao PW.7 : Nalla Bhaskar Rao. PW.8 : Pasupureddy Kumar Swamy PW.9 : Munjeti Kiran Kumar, (VRO) PW.10 : Savara Judisthi PW.11 : Kondasani Kurmarao PW.12 : Y.Urvarao PW.13 : Dr.G.Triveni, Medical Officer PW.14 : Y.Madhusudhana Rao, SI of Police PW.15 : S. Sankar Rao, Inspector Of police PW.16 : D.Ramu, Inspector of Police PW.17 : G.Sankar Rao, Inspector of Police.

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution: Ex.P1 : Report given to Police by PW.1. Ex.P2 : Inquest report. Ex.P3 : Postmortem report Ex.P4 : Final Opinion issued by Medical Officer Ex.P5 : FIR Ex.P6 : Scene observation report Ex.P7 : Photos three(3). Ex.P8 : Rough Sketch at scene of offence. Ex.P9 : Confessional statement of accused. Ex.P10: Rough sketch at the time of apprehension of A.1 and A.2. Ex.P11: Photos(3) at the time of apprehension of accused at Cheepi Junction Ex.P12: Mediator report. Ex.P13: Rough Sketch at the time of mobile discovery of deceased. Ex.P14: FSL report dt;08.09.2022. Ex.P15: FSL report dt;29.08.2022

For Defence:NIL.

MATERIAL OBJECTS

MO1: Brown and ash colour towel.

SC.27/2023, Date:30-04-2026

VI Addl. District & Sessions Court, Sompeta. - 44 -

MO2: Scooty bearing No.AP 30 S 1307 white colour MO3: Key pad mobile phone of A1. MO4: Key pad mobile phone of A2 MO5: Android mobile phone of deceased. MO6: Hawai Chappal of deceased.

Digitally Signed by

KISHORE BABUKISHORE BABU KODURU

KODURUDate: 2026.04.30 19:31:42 +0530 VI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Sompeta.

APSR040000582016

IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE : SOMPETA

Present : Sri Koduru Kishore Babu, VI Additional District Judge, Sompeta, Srikakulam District

MONDAY, THIS THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL, 2026.

ORIGINAL SUIT No.12/2016

Between :

Penta Shankara Rao, S/o.Late SatyanarayanaMurthy, Aged 58 years, Business, R/o.New Colony, Kasibugga, Palasa-Kasibugga Municipality, Palasa Mandal, Srikakulam District, A.P.

...Plaintiff.

And:

Talapadra Suresh, S/o.Ramaswamy, aged 38 years, R/o.Door No.1-4-126, Near M.P.D.O's office, Kasibugga Town and post, Palasa-Kasibugga Municipality, Palasa Mandal, Srikakulam District.

...Defendant.

This suit is coming on 17.02.2026 for final hearing before me, in the presence of Sri P.G.Rajaratnam and K.Govardhana Rao, Learned Counsels for Plaintiff; Sri P.L.Narayana, Learned Counsels for Defendant; and the matter having been stood over till this day and upon consideration, this court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed by the plaintiff seeking for specific performance of 01.

the agreement of the sale dated 30.03.2013 or in the alternative for refund of the advance sale consideration from the defendants.

2).The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:

- 2 -

O.S.No.12/2016, Dt:27.04.2026,

VI ADJ Court, Sompeta.

The suit schedule property is of the defendant and the defendant approached the plaintiff and requested him to purchase the plaint schedule property as the defendant is in need of money. The plaintiff and defendant negotiated and the plaintiff agreed to purchase the suit property at the rate of Rs.40,000/- per each cent and accordingly the defendant executed an agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff on 30.03.2013 on N.J.Stamp paper of Rs.20/- in the presence of attestors, scribe and received an advance amount of sale consideration of Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff by stipulating three months time to execute sale deed after receiving balance sale consideration.

Thereafter, though the plaintiff approached the defendant personally as well as through elders to execute the sale deed and to receive balance of sale consideration, the defendant postponed the same on one pretext or the other.

The plaintiff issued legal notice to the defendant on 23.2.2015 and having been received the same, the defendant either execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, or choose to issue reply notice. The plaintiff further came to know that the defendant is trying to sell the plaint schedule property to third parties and as such the defendant is evading to perform his part of contract, hence, this suit is filed for specific performance of executing the sale seed in favour of the plaintiff.

3).The defendant filed his written statement, denying the material averments of plaint, as they are all not true, valid and not binding on him and further submits that the plaintiff is an active real estate business man in

Kasibugga. The Modus operandi of the plaintiff is to get agreements without any consideration from persons who have no title over the properties and to sell away the properties fixing the rate of his own choice lesser to the market value so as to make pressure the real owner to yield to his terms to avoid kisyatious and the plaintiff acts being continued since several years and in certain cases, drag them to court of Law, by filing suits. The defendant further - 3 -

O.S.No.12/2016, Dt:27.04.2026,

VI ADJ Court, Sompeta.

submits that the plaintiff has tried his best to get the agreement for sale from the real owners, viz., T.Bindu and hatched-up a plan by creating the agreement of sale in the name the defendant with an oblique motive to pressure her to his folds for sale of the lands and this agreement of sale is clear concoction of the plaintiff with the assistance of his henchmen and his regular scribe.

The defendant further submits that he did not executed any agreement of sale for any of his lands or much less for the lands not belonging to him on 30.03.2013 in favour of the plaintiff or received any amount much less

Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff. The defendant denied that he has received notice said to be issued by the plaintiff and there is no demand by the plaintiff or through his elders demanding for execution of sale deed by the defendant and the plaintiff did not approached the Hon’ble Court with clean hands, and this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and prays to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.

Basing on the averments of the plaint and the written statement, 4).

the following issues are settled for trial:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to specific performance as prayed for?

2. Whether the suit document is true, valid and binding on the defendant?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for return of advance amount as alternative relief ?

4. To what relief?

- 4 -

O.S.No.12/2016, Dt:27.04.2026,

VI ADJ Court, Sompeta.

05.During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, the plaintiff is examined as PW.1/Penta Shankara Rao, and one Uriti Appalaraju

Patnaik is examined as PW.2, though B.Krishna Rao is examined in chief as PW.3, and one Katari Narasimha is examined in cheif as PW.4 both the witness were not attended before the court to adduce their evidence at the time of cross examination of learned counsel for the defendant, and the learned counsel for the plaintiff represented that those witness were threatened by the defenadant and are not attending to adduce their evidence. Ex.A1 to A4 are marked, on behalf of the plaintiff and the defendant is examined as DW.1/Talapadra Suresh. No documentary were filed and marked on behalf of defendant.

06.Heard bothsides.

07.The learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that the defendant is the owner of the suit scheduled property in an extent of Ac 0.26 cents situated in Sy.No 326/8 at Rajam village, and an extent of Ac 0.20 cents situated in Sy.No 245/2 at Payakaraopuram village and the defendnat approached the plaintiff and intended to sell a total extent of Ac 0.46 cents suit schedule property for his necessities and the plaintiff agreed for the same and as per the terms of agreement of sale, the defendant agreed to sell suit schedule property for Rs.40,000/- per cent and on that the plaintiff paid an advance of Rs.2,00,000/- and after receiving the advance consideration, the defendant executed an agreement of sale on 30.03.2013 in favour of plaintiff as the defendant agreed to register the schedule property by receiving balance of sale consideration. The plaintiff approached the defendant and expressed his ready and willingness to perform his remaining part of contract by paying balance of sale consideration and demanded for registration - 5 -

O.S.No.12/2016, Dt:27.04.2026,

VI ADJ Court, Sompeta.

personally and also through elder, but the defendant postponed the same with dishonest intention. The plaintiff got issued legal notice and defendant received the said notice and kept quiet. The plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of contract. Hence, the plaintiff is reqeuesting to decree the suit as prayed for.

08.The learned counsel for the defendant argued that he did not executed any agreement of sale for any of his lands or much less for the lands not belonging to him on 30.03.2013 in favour of the plaintiff or received any amount much less Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff. The defendant did not received any notice issued by the plaintiff demanding to execute or the plaintiff demanded by him or through his elders for execution of sale deed and the plaintiff did not approached the Hon’ble Court with clean hand. The defendant submits that he is not having any right to sale/alienate/transfer the suit schedule property to any other. The plaintiff with a view to grab the suit schedule property, filed this suit and requested to dismiss the suit.

POINT:

Issue No.1 & 2

09.To prove the execution of the sale agreement the burden is on the plaintiff, and to prove the said agreement is true, valid and binding on the defendant and the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of contract and further the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of contract of agreement of sale, dt.30.03.2013, the plaintiff got examined as PW.1 and the scribe of the sale agreement is examined as PW.2 and got Exhibited A1 to A4 for the plaintiff. On perusal of Exhibit-A1, it is original agreement dated 30.03.2013 executed by the defendant infavor of the plaintiff after receiving advance amount of Rs.2,00,000/-, Exhibit- - 6 -

O.S.No.12/2016, Dt:27.04.2026,

VI ADJ Court, Sompeta.

A2 is the legal notice issued by the plaintiff on 23.02.2015, Exhibit-A3 is the postal receipt for Exhibit -A2, Exhibit -A4 is the postal acknowledgement of Exhibit A2.

10)PW.1 in his cross-examination testified that he did not remember whether the document numbers of suit schedule property were mentioned in Ex.A.1/Sale Agreement, and further stated that those documents were received by him from the defendant at the time of sale.

The PW.1 further deposed that he cannot remember in whose favour the suit schedule documents were executed before preparation of

Ex.A.1/Sale Agreement. PW.1 further testified that the stamp/Ex.A.1 is purchased for the purpose of sale agreement at the time of execution, and has been executed on 30.03.2013 further he states that he cannot remember the date, month and year on which the stamp paper purchased by him. Further PW.1 testified that he did not got issued any notice inviting the defendant to execute sale deed even before filing of this suit. The PW.1 further denied the suggestions put to him that suit schedule property does not belong to the defendant, did not pay the advance amount for sale agreement to the defendant, the defendant did not executed sale agreement /Ex.A1 to sale his property, Ex.A1 is created and knowing all the facts the plaintiff filed this suit.

11)The testimony of PW.2 corraborated with the evidence of PW.1, during his cross examination testified that he acted as scribe at the time of preparation of Ex.A1/Sale agreement, he signed on evidence affidavit and Ex.A1 in English language, further testified that the defendant submitted adangal and pattadar passbooks which are in his favour at the time of preparation of Ex.A1 and further testified that he did not - 7 -

O.S.No.12/2016, Dt:27.04.2026,

VI ADJ Court, Sompeta.

write any documents of the properties belonging to the defendant

in Ex.A1. He further testified that the PW.1 purchased and handed to him the Ex.A1 stamp paper in the year, 2013 and further witnessed about the transaction that PW.1 gave Rs.2 lakhs to the defendant on the date of execution of Ex.A.1. Further PW.2 denied the suggestions put to him that the defendant did not submit the documents pertaining to the suit schedule property at the time of preparation of Ex.A1 and the plaintiff gave an amount of Rs.2 lakhs to the defendant at the time of execution of Ex.A1 and the defendant did not executed Ex.A.1.

12)PW.3 and PW.4 chief evidences were filed and exmined in chief but they did not turn up to give their evidence in favour of plaintiff during cross examination, hence their evidence cannot be taken in favour of the plaintiff due to non examination by the opposite party as the witnesses did not come forward to depose their evidence.

13) To disprove the case of the plaintiff defendant himself is examined as

DW.1 who filed his affidavit in-lieu of his examination in chief wherein he reiterated written statement pleadings as such examination of chief of

DW.1 is nothing but replica of written statement. During the cross

examination of DW.1 he testified that he know the plaintiff from the

transaction of the suit property and again he stated that he only

knows the plaintiff after receiving the summons. The defendant deposed that he and the plaintiff are having disputes with regard to the four inches place adjacent to the house wall of Ippili Raju. Further the defendant submitted that he do not have any immovable properties in

Rajam Village and also Payakarampuram village and further deposed that he will put his signature in telugu language and also he do not know - 8 -

O.S.No.12/2016, Dt:27.04.2026,

VI ADJ Court, Sompeta.

persons by name Badri Krishna and Katari Narsimhulu, he further he denied his signatures shown on Ex.A4 (Acknowledgment) further DW.1 denied for all suggestions put to him that he is having immovable property in Rajam village and also in Payakarampuram village, further offered to sell the said properties to the plaintiff, executed an agreement on 30.03.2013 selling his property in an extent of Ac.0.46 cents @40,000/- per cent and received an amount of Rs.2 lakhs from the plaintiff as advance at the time of execution of Ex.A1. He denied for the suggestion that he know one Badri Krishna and Katari Narsimhulu and denied the suggestion put to him that he signed on Ex.A.1 as well as

Ex.A.4 in English, but signed in telugu language in this suit proceedings in order to escape execution of sale agreement. The defendant further denied the suggestion put to him that he received a legal notice under the cover of Ex.A4 and he denied the suggestion put to him that he threatened and managed PW.3 and PW.4 not to appear before court for adducing their evidence and he is responsible to execute sale deed in favour of the plaintiff with regard to the suit schedule property.

14) A conjoint reading of testimonies of PW.1 and PW.2 coupled with

Ex.A.1 to Ex.A4, the evidence of PW.1 is well corroborated by the documentary evidence of Ex.A1 and ocular evidence of PW.2. On perusal of cross examination of PW.1 and PW.2 nothing worthwhile material is culled out from the cross examination of PW.1 and PW.2 in favour of defendant excepting suggestion to shake the evidence of

PW.1 as to the transaction under Ex.A1 in their presence and consistently deposed in the presence of PW.2, defendant received advance sale consideration of Rs.2 lakhs at the time of execution of

ExA.1 and agreed to execute a registered sale deed within three - 9 -

O.S.No.12/2016, Dt:27.04.2026,

VI ADJ Court, Sompeta.

months in favour of the plaintiff after receiving the balance sale consideration.

15) On careful examination of Ex.A1 the date of stamp paper on the date which it was purchased is being mentioned as 23.04.2012, whereas the

Ex.A.1 is being prepared on 30.03.2013, PW.1 stated that he bought the Ex.A.1 stamp paper on the date of executing it and where it is corroborated by PW.2 that on the date of execution of Ex.A.1 the PW.1 purchased the stamp paper for the purpose of sale agreement. The contradictory evidence with regard to the date of purchase have to be carefully examined whether the defendant executed Ex.A.1 on the pretext of selling his property or not. To decide the purchase of the stamp paper it is pertinent to look in to the pleadings of the parties.

16)The plaintiff filed the suit seeking the relief of specific performance based on the suit agreement dt:30.03.2013 marked as Ex.A1 whereas the defendant disputed the execution of Ex.A.1 for sale contended that he is not having the suit agreement property in his favour. Further the plaintiff seeked in his plaint that he gave an amount of Rs.2 lakhs at the time of execution of Ex.A1 whereas the defendant disputed the receiving of advance amount as the defendant never intended to sell his properties which are mentioned in the suit agreement or which are not in his favour. Further the plaintiff stated that he issued Ex.A2 registered legal notice dt:23.02.2015 to the defendant to come forward for the execution of sale deed as he is ready and willing to pay the balance sale consideration, for which the defendant denied that he did not received any legal notice from the plaintiff or from his counsel. The plaintiff further states that Ex.A3 and Ex.A4 are the postal receipts and - 10 -

O.S.No.12/2016, Dt:27.04.2026,

VI ADJ Court, Sompeta.

acknowledgements of Ex.A2 wherein the defendant received Ex.A2 notice and kept quite without giving any reply and Ex.A4 is the acknowledgement of the Ex.A2 where the defendant signed in English.

The defendant contended that he used to signed in telugu, and alleged that the plaintiff managed the postal authorities and kept his signature in

English and filed this suit though he did not entered into any sale agreement and prays to dismiss the suit.

17).Here the burden lies on the plaintiff that the defendant executed the sale agreement as the defendant raised objections that he never executed any sale agreement in favour of plaintiff or received any advance amount from the plaintiff as he is not having any property as mentioned in Ex.A.1.

18).In G.Veerabrahmam Vs Smit Gapalapuram Smmakka and another reported in 2009, it is observed that burden heavily rests upon plaintiff to prove the execution of sale agreement and also entitlement to the specific performance.

19)Basing on the above precedent, here the duty of the plaintiff to prove that the defendant has executed Ex.A1 sale agreement with intend to sell the suit agreement property. The plaintiff has tried to examine the attestors in Ex.A.1 but they did not attended before court for adducing their evidence during their cross examination. Though the scribe of - 11 -

O.S.No.12/2016, Dt:27.04.2026,

VI ADJ Court, Sompeta.

Ex.A.1 examined as PW.2 corroborated with the evidence of PW.1 it discloses that there is a transaction between the plaintiff and defendant considering the oral and documentary evidence this court finds there is ambiguity with regard to the execution of Ex.A1 in favour of the plaintiff by the defendant. As seen from the date of purchase of Ex.A1 it is purchased on 23.04.2012 whereas the execution of sale agreement is happened on 30.03.2013 and the plaintiff who seeks specific performance of the sale agreement and PW.2 who corroborated with the evidence of PW.1 have testified in their evidence that Ex.A1 stamp paper is bought on the day and date of execution of Ex.A1.

20) Here in this case the plaintiff is the business man doing all type of business and also doing real estate business, the defendant admitted in his cross examination that he knew the plaintiff from the transaction of the suit property, which discloses that plaintiff and defendant have acquaintance with regard to the money transactions. Though the defendant admitted he knew the plaintiff from the transaction of suit property he denied that he executed any sale agreement or received any advance amount from the plaintiff and it is the duty of the plaintiff to prove the agreement of sale by at least one of the witness or scribe of sale agreement and prove that the defendant had executed the agreement of sale with an intention to sell the property.

21).As the execution of the agreement Ex.A1 is specifically denied by the defendant. In such circumstances, the burden completely lies on the plaintiff to prove execution at least with one attesting witness. Now it pertinent to look into the Section 67 & 68 of Indian Evidence Act.

- 12 -

O.S.No.12/2016, Dt:27.04.2026,

VI ADJ Court, Sompeta.

Section 67 of Indian Evidence Act: Proof of signature and handwriting of

person alleged to have signed or written document produced. If a document

is alleged to be signed or to have been written wholly or in part by any

person, the signature or the handwriting of so much of the document as is

alleged to be in that person’s handwriting must be proved to be in his

handwriting.

Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act: Proof of execution of document required

by law to be attested.––If a document is required by law to be attested, it shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least has been called for

the purpose of proving its execution, if there be an attesting witness alive,

and subject to the process of the Court and capable of giving evidence

As per section 67 of the Indian Evidence Act, execution must be proved by establishing that the signature belongs to the defendant.

Further, since the document is required to be attested, proof must comply with section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, which mandates examination of at least one attesting witness.

21).In the present case though attesting witnesses filed affidavits, they did not produce for cross-examination and submit their evidence. It is settled law that evidence not tested by cross-examination cannot be relied upon. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vidhyadhar Vs Manikrao &

Anr on 17 March, 1999 held that failure to subject a witness to cross- examination affects the evidentiary value of such testimony. Similarly, in

Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani And Another vs. Indusind Bank Ltd. And

others, (2004) 3 SCC, it was held that proof of execution must be clear and strict when specifically denied.

- 13 -

O.S.No.12/2016, Dt:27.04.2026,

VI ADJ Court, Sompeta.

22).The scribe’s evidence alone is insufficient to prove execution when attesting witnesses are not examined effectively. Further, despite of denial of signature and execution, the plaintiff did not take steps for obtaining expert opinion under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act.

23).As seen from the above discussion we can observe the date of purchase of Ex.A1 stamp paper and the date of preparation and exectuion of it is different and it differs with testimonies of PW.1 and

PW.2 and this court finds that it may been fabricated by the plaintiff taking advantage of having the possession as it disclosed that it was purchased in the year 2012 itself and further used as sale agreement

Ex.A1. So, with this we can come to a conclusion that the defendant did not execute Ex.A1 the agreement of sale under the pretext of selling suit property to the plaintiff. Moreover the plaintiff did not file any other document which are linked with the sale agreement property mentioned in Ex.A1 to show that the properties stands in the name of defendant, which supports the finding that Ex.A1 was not executed.

24) From the evidence let in both parties it is clear that though the scribe was examined in favour of the plaintiff with regard to the execution of sale agreement Ex.A.1 both the PW.1 and PW.2 stated that the Ex.A1 stamp paper was bought on the date of execution of it ie., 30.03.2013 which is not reliable evidence as it is evident on seeing Ex.A1 stamp paper that it discloses that the date as 23.04.2012. This difference with regard to the date of purchase of Ex.A1 discloses that Ex.A1 is purchased by the plaintiff in the year, 2012 and fabricated the same as sale agreement in the year, 2013. As the document is derived as fabricated then the question of proving the plaintiff’s readiness and - 14 -

O.S.No.12/2016, Dt:27.04.2026,

VI ADJ Court, Sompeta.

willingness to perform his part of contract will not arise as the plaintiff did not proved his burden that the defendant executed Ex.A1.

22)Though the plaintiff asked the alternative relief of refund of advance amount, on bare reading of pleadings of both parties and evidence adduced on their behalf and the other points discussed as above we can conclude that the defendant has not executed sale agreement and he has not received Rs 2 lakhs as part of sale consideration and this court also held that agreement was not genuine as the date of purchase of the Ex.A1 stamp paper and execution of it with regard to the evidence adduced by PW.1 and PW.2 itself stating that it is fabricated by the plaintiff using it and misused the same and created alleged agreement of sale of Ex.A1.

23)According to the plaintiff the defendant executed Ex.A1. after receiving

Rs.2 lakhs as advance amount which is not proved by him whereas the defendant on the other hand denied all the pleadings and evidence of the plaintiff and shifted the burden on the plaintiff to prove the execution wherein the plaintiff failed. Thus this court came to a conclusion that there was no agreement of sale between the plaintiff and the defendant and when there is no genuine agreement there is no transaction of amount also. Since the court found that the execution of agreement was not proved.

24) In view of the above discussion the plaintiff did not established that the agreement of sale dated 30.03.2013 is true valid and binding on the defendant, and hence the plaintiff is not entitled to specific performance of sale agreement as the suit document is not true, valid and binding on - 15 -

O.S.No.12/2016, Dt:27.04.2026,

VI ADJ Court, Sompeta.

the defendant. Since the suit document is not true, valid and binding on the defendant the plaintiff is not entitled for the return of advance amount also. Accordingly the points are answered.

24)In view of answering in issues No.1 to 3 against the plaintiff, the suit is dismissed without costs.

Directly typed to my dictation by the typist, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 27 th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- Sri Koduru Kishore Babu,

VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

SOMPETA.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Plaintiff : For Defendant :

PW.1 : Penta Shankara RaoDW.1 : Talabadra Suresh

PW.2 : Uriti Appalaraju Patnaik

Exhibits Marked

For Plaintiff : Ex.A1 : Sale Agreement,dt.30.03.2013

Ex.A2 : Legal notice issued by the plaintiff, 23.02.2015.

Ex.A3 : Reply notice issued by the Defendant, 03-12-2020

Ex.A4 : Acknowledge.

For Defendant : Nil.

Sd/- Sri Koduru Kishore Babu,

VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

SOMPETA.

// True Copy //

VI Additional District Judge, Sompeta.

APSR040001032020

IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE:

SOMPETA

Present : Sri KODURU KISHORE BABU, VI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Sompeta.

MONDAY, THIS THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MAY, 2026.

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.05/2020

From which Court the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kotabommali. Appeal is preferred

Number of the case in the C.C.No.78/2017 Trial Court

Number of the AppealCriminal Appeal No.05/2020

Name and Description of theCheedi Srinivasa Rao, S/o.Late Thumbayya, Appellant/Accused No.1Aged 34 years, Hindu, R/o.Tilaru Village, Kotabommali Mandal, Srikakulam District.

Name and Description of theThe State of A.P., represented by its Public RespondentProsecutor.

Section of law under whichA1 is found guilty for the offence punishable the trial court imposedunder section 323 of Indian Penal Code and punishmentconvicted under section 248(2) of Cr.P.C and A1 is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under section 323 IPC and also to pay a fine of Rs 1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) and in default of payment of fine, A1 shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months.

Whether confirmed, modifiedModified. In the result, the appeal is allowed or reversed. If modified, thein part setting aside the simple imprisonment modificationfor one year, but maintained the payment of fine Rs 1000/- for the offence section 323 IPC imposed by trial court against appellant.

Crl.A.No.05/2020, Dt.18.05.2026,

VI Addl. District & Sessions Court, Sompeta. - 2 - Date of Presentation of06.12.2019 Appeal

Date of judgment18.05.2026

This Criminal Appeal came-up before me on 01.05.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri Y.Krishna Murthy, Learned Counsels for the appellant/accused/A1; and Sri D. Jagannaikulu, Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State/respondent, upon hearing the arguments of the appellant and respondent and upon perusing the material on record and having considered the same till this day, this court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

01.Appeal is against the calendar and Judgment dated 04.09.2019 passed in C.C.No.78/2017 by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Kotabommali.

02.The appellant is the accused/A1 suffered conviction for the offence under section 323 of Indian Penal Code. The accused/A1 is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of

Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, A1 shall undergo simple imprisonment for 3 (three) months.

03.The respondent herein is the State represented by its Public

Prosecutor.

04.For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred as the accused/A1 and the defacto-complainant as how they were arrayed in the impugned order.

05.As per charge-sheet, the case of the prosecution in brief is that the defacto-complainant/LW.1 is the native of Narasingapalle village, was got married with appellant / accused/A1/Cheedi Srinivasa Rao, ten years back

Crl.A.No.05/2020, Dt.18.05.2026,

VI Addl. District & Sessions Court, Sompeta. - 3 - prior to the incident. During the conjugal life, they were blessed with a daughter. The appellant/A1 had been working in Indian Army and returned home by leaving his job and during his stay at home, he used to harass the defacto-complainant/LW.1 in both mentally and physically, though the matter placed before the elders and was pacified, he used to continue his harassment against the defacto-complainant/LW.1. The defacto- complainant/LW.1 due to unbearable harassment by the accused no 1, she left the matrimonial home to her parents house and filed a case against her husband/A1 and on her in-laws which was pending. The prosecution further states that the defacto-complainant/LW.1 was taken back to the matrimonial fold on 20.08.2016 assuring that the A1 would look after her properly. On 20.04.2017,at about 02.00 pm, the A1, husband of defacto-complainant/LW.1 and A2/mother-in-law of defacto-complainant/LW.1, with a common intention, attacked on her and beat the defacto complainant indiscriminately, on that, the defacto-complainant/LW.1 lodged a written report before the complainant police. Basing on the written report, LW.10/S.I of Police, registered a case against the accused, under section 324 and 323 r/w 34 of IPC. During the course of investigation, the statements of the witnesses were recorded, forwarded the defacto-complainant/LW.1 to the Medical Officer, Community

Health Centre, Kotabommali, the crime scene was observed in the presence of LW’s.7 & 8 (mediators) and the weapon was seized under cover of scene observation report. On 26.04.2017, LW.10/S.I of Police served section 41-A

Cr.P.C notice to A1 & A2, received wound certificate of injured and after completion of investigation, the complainant police filed charge-sheet, against the A1 & A2, for the offence punishable under section 324, 323 r/w 34 of IPC.

06.The case was taken on file by the trial court under sections 324, 323 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code against the accused/A1 & A2. After appearance of accused/A1 & A2, case copies were furnished to them as required under section 207 of Cr.P.C.

Crl.A.No.05/2020, Dt.18.05.2026,

VI Addl. District & Sessions Court, Sompeta. - 4 -

07.The accused/A1 & A2 made their appearance before trial court, they were examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C and charges were framed against accused/A1 for the offences under sections 324 r/w 34 of Indian

Penal Code and against accused/A2 for the offences under sections 323 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and the said charges are read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.

08.In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined PW.1/C.Damayanthi, PW.2/M.Ramanaiah, PW.3/Surapu Ramana,

PW.4/Surapu Latchumayya, PW.5/Tara Janardhana Rao, PW.6/Ponnada

Jyothi, PW.7/Dr.S.KalyanRam and PW.8/G.Narayana Swamy, Sub-Inspector of Police and got exhibited, Ex.P1 to Ex.P8 and MO.1/Bamboo stick.

09.After closure of the prosecution evidence, both accused/A1 & A2 are examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C and explained the incriminating evidence against them adduced by prosecution witnesses, for which they denied. No evidence was adduced on behalf of accused and no documents were exhibited.

10.Upon perusal of the entire evidence and material available on record and upon hearing both sides, the learned trial court, gave finding that the prosecution proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt against accused/A1 for the offence punishable under section 323 of Indian Penal Code and accordingly the accused/A1 is convicted under section 248(2) of Cr.P.C.

Aggrieved against the said finding, the accused/A1 preferred this appeal.

11.In the memorandum of appeal, the appellant/A1 contended with the following grounds that:

a)The judgment of the trial court is contrary to law arbitrary and against the weight of evidence and probabilities of the case.

Crl.A.No.05/2020, Dt.18.05.2026,

VI Addl. District & Sessions Court, Sompeta. - 5 -

b).The lower court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record in the proper perspective.

c).The lower court should observe that motive of the case to report against the appellant by the PW.1 because it clearly shows the delay of the FIR

d).The lower court failed to see the evidence of PW’s.1 to 6 witnesses of the prosecution they are close relatives of PW.1 and in that evidence, PW.2/eye witness, not corroborated with evidence of PW.1 and PW’s.3 to 5 not supported the case of prosecution and they are not hostile.

e).The lower court failed to see the evidence of p.w.1 the report prepared by her advocate with the help of her brother.

f).The lower court failed to see the evidence of p.w.1 she is clearly admitted previous cases pending before JFCM kotabommali.

g).The lower court failed to see the evidence of PW.7/Doctor and

Ex.P6 not corroborated with the injuries of PW.1

The appellant prays the Hon’ble Court to set-aside the judgment dated 04.09.2019 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kotabommali in

CC.No.78/2017.

12. The learned counsel for the Appellant/A-1 while arguing the appeal submitted that the judgment of the trail court is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of case as such the same is liable to be set-aside.

It is the contention of the appellant that the story of the prosecution is not true.

The learned counsel submits that as the same was created for the purpose of filing a false case due to political rivalry. Further the appellant argued that there is delay in giving report by four days, which is abnormal and therefore, there is every possibility of consultations and deliberations in lodging report and thereby

Crl.A.No.05/2020, Dt.18.05.2026,

VI Addl. District & Sessions Court, Sompeta. - 6 - there is a chance of false report, which cannot be ruled-out and moreover, there are many contradictions and omissions elicited during the cross-examination of witnesses and therefore prays to acquit the accused.

13. Per contra the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor submitted that the prosecution has proved the guilt of A-1 for the offences under section 323 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. PW.1 is the injured and her evidence is corroborated with the evidence PW.2 and also by the medical evidence. Though

PW.3 to PW.5 turned hostile, PW.2 is an independent eye witness corroborated with the testimony of PW.1. PW.1 being injured had no occasion to falsely implicate A-1 as responsible for the injuries sustained by him and leave the real culprits. He further submits that the evidence born by record shows that there was no political rivalry between PW.1 and the accused as they both wife and husband. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor ultimately submitted that if the evidence borne by record, is scrutinized carefully the same establishes the guilt of the Accused No.1 for the offence under sections 323 IPC, as such the trial court rightly convicted and sentenced him and the said judgment of the trial court is sustainable under law and by submitting so, he prayed the Court to dismiss the appeal and confirm the judgment of the trail court.

14.Basing on the contentions of appellant in the appeal grounds, and after listening the above rival arguments the following points arose for determination:

01. Whether the prosecution has bring home the guilt of the appellant/A1 for the offence punishable under section 323 of

Indian Penal Code ?

02. Whether finding of the Trial Court that the prosecution proved the guilt of appellant/A1 for the offence under section 323 of Indian

Penal Code, is tenable ?

Crl.A.No.05/2020, Dt.18.05.2026,

VI Addl. District & Sessions Court, Sompeta. - 7 -

03.Whether there are any grounds to interfere with the Calendar and

Judgment of the trial court, passed in C.C.78/2017, dt.04.09.2019 ?

04. To what result?

15.To decide the above points, this court has carefully examined the whole oral and documentary evidence available in record vide the testimonies of

PW.1 to 8, Ex.P1 to P8 and MO.1 and the same the same manifests that it is the specific case of the prosecution that on 20.04.2017, at about 02.00 pm, the A1 husband of defacto-complainant and A2/mother-in-law of defacto- complainant with a common intention, attacked on her and beat the defacto complainant indiscriminately, PW.2 witnessed that Accused no 1 is beating the defacto complainant with a stick while he was proceeding to the fields, he also deposed that PW.3 and PW.4 also witnessed the same from distance to the scene of offence. The defacto complainant caused bleeding injuries on her shoulders. Further the defacto complainant lodged Ex.P1 report before

PW.8, and the police referred her to CHC Kotabommali.

16.P.W.1 was cross-examined at length but nothing was elicited in favour of the accused to disbelieve her evidence. It is elicited in cross examination of PW.1 that the incident happened at 06:30 a.m., she sustained bleeding injuries and her clothes were wet with blood. It is suggested to PW.1 that she foisted false case against the accused due to political influence to implicated the accused but the same was denied by PW.1.

17.PW.2 also cross examined at length but nothing was elicited to disbelieve his evidence except some minor contradictions which do not go to the root of the prosecution. The evidence of PW.2 was remained un-shaken

Crl.A.No.05/2020, Dt.18.05.2026,

VI Addl. District & Sessions Court, Sompeta. - 8 - with regard to the material crux of the incident of accused beating PW.1. He denied for the suggestion that due to political influence he is speaking false.

18. PW.3 to PW.5 are also said to be witnessed the incident but they did not deposed anything before this court against the accused and did not support the case of prosecution. Though the learned APP cross examined them, they denied for the suggestion that they are speaking false to help the accused.

19. If the above evidence of PW.1&2 are scrutinized with meticulous care and caution the same shows that they consistently deposed about the material crux of the incident of A1, beating PW.1 in the early morning on the date of incident. On scrutiny of the evidence of witness, there appeared certain minor discrepancies and contradictions and the same do not go to the root of the case of the prosecution, as the evidence of PW.1 & 2 is consistent as to

A-1 beating PW.1 with a MO.1. Therefore, this Court can consider the trustworthy evidence of PW.1 and her statement before the Police is consistent with regard to A-1 beating her. PW.2 is the independent eye witness whose testimony establishes that PW.1 was beaten by A-1 on the date of incident and at that time his presence is established there while he is going to his fields and from from the same it can be inferred that there is truth in the evidence of PW.1& 2 that the accused beat PW.1 and caused injuries.

PW.2 was not cross-examined to deny his presence there at that time or he did not witnessed the accused beating PW.1 at the scene of offence at the relevant time and the factum of galata was taken place between PW.1 and the accused. In this context it is settled law that once the witness has stated a fact in his chief-examination and if the same was remained un-challenged by the accused in the cross-examination by way of giving a suggestion at least to deny the same, the said fact amounts to be admitted fact on the part

Crl.A.No.05/2020, Dt.18.05.2026,

VI Addl. District & Sessions Court, Sompeta. - 9 - of the accused. Thus the evidence of PW.2 is corroborated the testimony of

PW.1 with regard to the material crux of the incident.

20. From the above evidence, the injured/PW.1/Ch.Damayanthi lodged a criminal case prior to this incident for physical and mental harassment and further, she joined the conjugal life and later, this incident is happened on the date of incident that her husband/A1, A2 attacked on her. PW.1 deposed that the appellant/A1 beat her with stick on her shoulders and she sustained bleeding injuries and later, she gave a report to the police. PW.1 evidence is corroborated with the evidence deposed by PW.2, who is the eye-witness and observed the incident while he was proceeding to his fields and also separated the injured from the hands of accused and also stated about the MO.1/stick.

21.Now, the burden of proof lies on the prosecution to prove the fact here in this case. The fact is to prove whether the appellant/A1 beat the PW.1 with stick.

Basing on the testimony of PW.1 and corroborating with the testimony of PW.2 that the appellant/A1 beat the PW.1 with stick on her shoulders where the evidence is corroborated with the evidence of PW.7 and Ex.P6. It is established that there are contusion injuries on both the shoulders and they are simple in nature.

22.PW.6 is the VRO, deposed about the the visit to the scene of offence, seizure of MO.1/bamboo stick under cover of Ex.P5/Mediators Report.

During her cross-examination, she denied the suggestion that at the instance of police, she is deposing false evidence.

21.PW.7 evidence discloses that contusions on the shoulders and the contusions reddish-blue in colour and the injuries are simple in nature as per

Ex.P6. Thus the medical evidence is corroborated with the evidence of PW.1 & PW.2.

Crl.A.No.05/2020, Dt.18.05.2026,

VI Addl. District & Sessions Court, Sompeta. - 10 - 22.PW.8 is the Investigation Officer, who registered the crime against the accused, he examined PW.1 and recorded her statement and sent her to CHC-

Kotabommali, for medical treatment and further he visited the scene of offence and secured the presence of PW’s.2 to 5 and LW.6 and recorded their statements and later int eh presence of PW.6 and LW.8, he observed the scene of offence and seized the MO.1/stick under cover of Ex.P5, later, he prepared the Ex.P8/rough sketch and got issued section 41-A Cr.P.C notice to the accused and after completion of investigation, he filed charge-sheet.

23. In view of afore stated discussion, as the testimonies of PWs.1, 2, are consistent and was remained unshaken, having withstood even during their cross-examination and further as the same is corroborated by the medical evidence with regard to the injuries sustained by PW.1, this court have no hesitation to hold that the testimony of Pws.1, and 2 are reliable and trustworthy, as such the contention of the defence that their testimony should not be based for convicting the accused cannot be considered. The other contention of the defence that there was abnormal delay in First Information Report also does not stand to the scrutiny of the evidence as it was not attacked by the defence during the cross examination of the witness.

24.Thus, in view of my afore stated discussion, having scanned the whole evidence borne by record this court have no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has brought home the guilt of the accused No.1 for the offence punishable under section 323 I.P.C. against A1, as such this court confirms the conviction of the trial court, but having considered the social background of A1 and the factum of his eking out of livelihood on coolie work working as mason and his family members bank on him for their livelihood and also considering the thinking nature of the villagers as the Accused no 1 unnecessarily tempted on his wife without realizing repercussions of the

Crl.A.No.05/2020, Dt.18.05.2026,

VI Addl. District & Sessions Court, Sompeta. - 11 - same, involved in such type of offence as one in the case on hand and further since he is not having any other cases other than foisted by his wife as per the material borne by record, does not divulge that he is offender in such type of offences filed by his wife, therefore this court modify the sentence imposed by the trial court to the effect that the one year imprisonment imposed by the trail court against A1 is set-aside and the fine imposed against him is confirmed for the offence under sections 323 IPC. Accordingly the point is answered.

25.In the result, this criminal appeal is allowed in part. The conviction and sentence under section 323 is confirmed, but the sentence of simple imprisonment for one year is set aside, the fine amount of Rs 1000/- imposed by trial court against the appellant/accused/A1 is maintained. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed.

Typed to my dictation by the stenographer, corrected, signed and

pronounced by me in open court, on this the 18th day of May, 2026.

Digitally Signed by

KISHORE BABU

KISHORE BABU KODURU

KODURU

Date: 2026.05.18 16:06:42 +0530

VI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Sompeta.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined & Documents Marked.

No oral/documentary evidence adduced on either side in this appeal.

Digitally Signed by

KISHORE BABU

KISHORE BABU KODURU

KODURU

Date: 2026.05.18 16:07:59 +0530

VI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Sompeta.

APSR040000792018

IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE : SOMPETA

Present : Sri Koduru Kishore Babu, VI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Sompeta.

THURSDAY, THIS THE SEVENTH DAY OF MAY, 2026.

ORIGINAL SUIT No.15/2018

Between :

Surapati Sanjay Vyas, S/o.Dr.Sankara Rao, Aged 26 years, R/o.Door No.34- 11-83, Koli Cross Street, Gnanapuram, Visakhapatnam, presently residing at C/o.Star Hospital, K.T.Road, Palasa, Palasa Mandal, Srikakulam District, A.P.

...Plaintiff.

And :

Malla Ramjee, S/o.Late Nooka Raju, Aged 33 years, Hindu, Business, Door No.1-6-864/1, Komati Street, Palasa, Palasa Mandal, Srikakulam District, A.P.

...Defendant.

This suit is coming on 04.05.2026 for final hearing before me, in the presence of Sri G.S.Sailendra, Learned Counsel for Plaintiff; Sri K.S.P.Babu, Learned Counsel for Defendant, but did not come forward to contest the case; and the matter having been stood over till this day and upon consideration, this court delivered the following

J U D G M E N T

01).This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant seeking recovery of Rs.16,96,000/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakhs Ninety Six Thousands only) towards

principal and interest due under the suit promissory note, dt.15-09-2015, with

subsequent interest and costs of the suit.

O.S.No.15/2018, Dt:07.05.2026,

VI ADJ Court, Sompeta. - 2 -

02).The brief averments of the plaint are that on 15-09-2015, the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) from the plaintiff at Palasa for investing into his business, agreeing to repay the same together with interest @ 24 % per annum on demand either to the plaintiff or to his Order and executed a suit promissory note in favour of the plaintiff on the same day, after receiving the consideration amount of Rs.10,00,000/- by way of cheque bearing No.066466 of State Bank of India, Palasa.

Further, subsequent to execution of the suit promissory note, the defendant gave a cheque for Rs.5,80,000/- towards part payment due under the suit promissory note. The plaintiff presented the said cheque before the

SBI, Purnamarket Branch, Visakhapatnam, but the said cheque was dishonoured with a reason “Insufficient Funds” in the account of Defendant.

The plaintiff informed the same to the defendant and the defendant requested to proceed under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The plaintiff did not take any criminal action against the defendant. As the defendant did not pay any amount either towards principal or interest inspite repeated demands made by this plaintiff in person and through elders, finally the plaintiff got issued a registered legal notice, dt.30-01-2018, demanding to repay the amount due under the suit promissory note along with interest. The defendant after receiving the said notice, neither choose to give any reply, nor paid any amount. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file the present suit for recovery of suit promissory note amount along with interest @ 24 % per annum and suit costs, against the defendant.

03). The defendant counsel filed vakalat for defendant and further filed the written statement denying the plaint averments. Further, after framing issues, the counsel for the defendant filed a memo submitting that the defendant is not interested in proceeding in this suit and he is not having any instructions to defend the suit.

O.S.No.15/2018, Dt:07.05.2026,

VI ADJ Court, Sompeta. - 3 -

04).As the matter is not settled between the parties, the court framed the following issues.

1).Whether the suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendant ?

2).To what relief ?

During the course of trial, the plaintiff got filed his chief examination and examined in chief a PW.1 and at the request of the defendant counsel, the matter is adjourned from time to time as the defendant counsel or the defendant did not come forward for cross-examination and finally on 16-10- 2025, though PW.1 called present for the cross-examination by the defendant counsel, the defendant counsel reported that he has o instruction sfrom the party. Hence, the cross-examination of PW.1 is treated as nil. The plaintiff counsel reported no further evidence on behalf of plaintiff and the plaintiff evidence is closed. The defendant counsel reported that no evidence for the defendant and endorsed on vakalat that he has no instruction to defenda the suit, hence, the defendant-side evidence is also closed.

05).In order to substantiate the claim, the plaintiff got examined as PW.1 and got marked Ex’s.A1 to A6 on his behalf. The evidence is unchallenged, suit claim is proved.

06).Heard the arguments for the plaintiff and perused the suit record.

07).As seen from the evidence of PW.1 (Surapati Sanjay Vyas,

S/o.Dr.Sankara Rao) and the documentary evidence, i.e.,

Ex.A1 : Promissory Note executed by the defendant on 15-09-2015 in infavour of plaintiff,

Ex.A2 : Cheque, dt.15-07-2016, bearing No.296573, for Rs.5,80,000/- ,

Ex.A3 : Cheque return memo, issued by the SBI, dt.27-07-2016,

O.S.No.15/2018, Dt:07.05.2026,

VI ADJ Court, Sompeta. - 4 - Ex.A4 : Office copy of legal notice issued by the plaintiff through his counsel to the defendant, dt.30-01-2018.

Ex.A5 : Postal Receipt of Ex.A4/Legal Notice, dt.31-01-2018.

Ex.A6 : Postal Acknowledgment, filed by the plaintiff establishes the claim of the plaintiff under suit promissory note against the defendant. Though the defendant counsel filed the written statement on behalf of the the defendant, denying the plaint averments, he did not contest the matter as the defendant had not given any instructions to him, hence, this Court treated that there is no contra evidence in the suit.

Therefore, in the absence of contra evidence, this Court is of considered opinion that the plaintiff / PW.1 has proved the claim, i.e., the suit promissory note debt against the defendant.

08).In the result, the suit is decreed with costs, for an amount of

Rs.16,96,000/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakhs Ninety Six Thousands only) towards

principal and interest due under the suit promissory note, along with

subsequent interest @ 6% per annum on the principal amount of

Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) from the date of decree till realization on principal sum.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 07 th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- Sri Koduru Kishore Babu,

VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

SOMPETA.

O.S.No.15/2018, Dt:07.05.2026,

VI ADJ Court, Sompeta. - 5 -

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Plaintiff : For Defendant :

PW.1 : Surapati Sanjay VyasNone.

Exhibits Marked

For Plaintiff : Ex.A1 : Promissory Note executed by the defendant on 15-09-2015 in in favour of plaintiff.

Ex.A2 : Cheque, dt.15-07-2016, bearing No.296573, for Rs.5,80,000/-.

Ex.A3 : Cheque return memo, issued by the SBI, dt.27-07-2016.

Ex.A4 : Office copy of legal notice issued by the plaintiff through his counsel to the defendant, dt.30-01-2018.

Ex.A5 : Postal Receipt of Ex.A4/Legal Notice, dt.31-01-2018.

Ex.A6 : Postal Acknowledgment.

For Defendant : Nil.

Sd/- Sri Koduru Kishore Babu,

VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

SOMPETA.