1
IN THE COURT OF VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS
JUDGE(FTC), GUNTUR
PRESENT: Sri L. SRIDHAR,
V ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,
FAC, VI ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC), GUNTUR
Thursday, the 25th day of July, 2019.
Calendar in Sessions Case No.460/2008
1.Name of the CaseSessions Case No.460/2008
2. Name of the committing IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Guntur
Magistrate
3. Name of the complainant State: Inspector of Police, East L&O., Circle, Guntur.
4. Name of the Accused 1.Nallapati Sivaiah, S/o.Sambaiah, aged 34 years, Rajaka, near R.C.M., School, Koritepadu, Guntur. 2.Katti Brahma Reddy, S/o.Sambasiva Reddy, aged 31 years, Reddy, H.No.4-6-33, Koritepadu, Guntur. 3.Kaluguri Naga Raju, S/o.Subba Rao, aged 29 years, Rajaka, N/o.Tadikonda, Now in Sarada Colony, Guntur. 4.Malladi Krishna, S/o.Veeraiah, aged 25 years, Yadava, Plot No.405, B-Block, 9th lane, Swarnabharathi Nagar, Guntur.(DIED-
ABATED)
5.Davala @ Domala China Yakobu @ Yakobu, S/o.Abraham, aged 25 years, Madiga, besides Railway Track, near Manipuram Gate, Israielpet, Guntur. 6.Dharmaraju Radha Krishna, S/o.Brahmam, aged 25 years, Rajaka, Plot No.331, 8th lane, Swarnabharathi Nagar, Guntur. 7.Atla Srikanth Reddy, S/o.Rama Krishna Reddy, aged 27 years, Reddy, Redla Bazar, Koritepadu, Guntur. 8.Pagidimalli Mallikharjuna Rao @ Malli, S/o.Malakondaiah, aged 25 years, Rajaka, Swanabharathi Nagar, Guntur. 9.Karasani Siva Koti Reddy, S/o.Putta Reddy, aged 44 years, Karanamgari Veedhi, Koritepadu, Guntur. 10.Rachakonda Prakash, S/o.Sambaiah, aged 35 years, Rajaka, 5th lane, Mutyalareddy Nagar, Guntur. 11.Paturi Brahmaiah, S/o.Venkateswarlu, 2 aged 35 years, Rajaka, 2nd lane, Postal Colony, Guntur. 12.Byri Venkateswarlu @ Bujji, S/o.Sriramulu, aged 25 years, Rajaka, 5th lane, Mutyalareddy Nagar, Guntur. 13.Mallela Srinu, S/o.Balaiah, aged 35 years, Vaddera, Chinagarlapadu (V), Karampudi Mandal (DIED-ABATED) 5.Date of 06.08.2008
i) Filling ii)Apprehension of Accused02-03-2009 (except A1 & A12); (Appearance before 11-11-2009;
sessions court)
iii)Commencement of trial09.05.2011 iv)Closure of trial11.07.2019
v)Pronouncement of 25.07.2019 Judgment 6.Offence(s)Under Secs. 120-B r/w 149, 147 r/w 149, 148 r/w 149, 302, 307 r/w 149of IPC and Section 3 and 5 of E.S. Act and Section 27 (1) of Arms Act. 7.Plea of AccusedNot Guilty 8.Finding of the CourtGuilty
9. Sentence or order
In the result, the accused/A1 and A2 are found guilty for the offences under Section 302 of IPC and under Section 27 (1) of
Arms Act and accordingly, they are convicted under Section 235 (2) Cr.P.C. for the said offences.
Further, the accused/A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offences under Sections 120-B r/w 149, 147 r/w 149, 148 r/w 149, 307 r/w 149 and under Sections 3 and 5 of E.S. Act. The accused/A3, A5 to A12 are found not guilty for the offences under
Sections 120-B r/w 149, 147 r/w 149, 148 r/w 149, 302, 307 r/w 149 and under Sections 3 and 5 of E.S. Act and under Section 27 (1) of Arms Act. Accordingly they are acquitted under Section 3 235 (1) Cr.P.C.
Hence, the accused/A1 and A2 each are sentenced to undergo “Rigorous Imprisonment for life till they are alive”. Since fine is also required to be imposed, they are also sentenced to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- each (Rupees Two Thousand Each Only) IDSI for two months each for the offence under Section 302 of IPC. They further each sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for Three years and to pay fine of
Rs.2,000/- each (Rupees Two Thousand Each Only) IDSI for two
months each for the offence under Section 27 (1) of Arms Act. Both sentences shall run concurrently. M.Os.1 to 21, which are non- valuable case property are ordered to be destroyed after lapse of appeal time. M.Os.22 to 24, 26 and 27 i.e., Suzuki Red colour Bike bearing No.AP 7H 4882; Hero Honda Splendor Maroon Black, bearing regn. No.AP 07 AQ 5726; Four Nokia Cell phones; One
Sony Ericson mobile phone, two Nokia Cell phones and one
Spice Mobile phone; Hero Honda Splendor bearing No.AP 07 AJ 1107 are ordered to be confiscated to State after lapse of appeal time. M.O.25 i.e. Tata Indica Car bearing No.AP 09AR 7518 which was already given for interim custody vide orders in
Crl.M.P.No.318/2018 dated.21.10.2008, holds good.
The accused are informed about their right to prefer appeal to the Hon’ble High Court of of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi and copy of the judgment is being supplied to them for the said purpose.
10.Explanation for Delay:- Originally this case was received from the IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur vide PRC No.27/2008 against 4 the accused by the Hon'ble Court of Sessions and the Hon’ble
Sessions Judge, Guntur made over the same to this Court for
disposal according to law. On 19-11-2009 accused were examined and charges were framed u/s 120-B r/w 149, 147 r/w 149, 148 r/w 149, 302, 307 r/w 149of IPC and Section 3 and 5 of E.S. Act and
Section 27 (1) of Arms Act against the accused, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On 09-05-2011, the prosecution commenced its trial and on 11-07-2019 closed its trial by examining P.Ws.1 to 20 and by marking Exs.P1 to P20 and M.Os.1 to 27 and D.W.1 was examined and Exs.D1 to D25 were marked on behalf of the defence. On 27-07-2012, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., for which, they denied the offence.
Heard arguments of both sides on 11-7-2019 and pronounced
Judgment on 25-7-2019. Hence, there is no unavoidable delay in this case.
V ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,
FAC, VI ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC),
GUNTUR.
Copy to:
1. The Hon'ble Registrar (Judl.) High court of A.P., at Amaravathi.through the District & Sessions Judge, Guntur.
2. The Hon'ble District & Sessions Judge, Guntur
3. The Director of Prosecutions, D.No.24-19-12/A, Durgapuram, Vijayawada.
4. The Superintendent of Police, Guntur Urban.
5. The IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur.
6. The Addl. Public Prosecutor.
5
IN THE COURT OF VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS
JUDGE(FTC), GUNTUR
PRESENT: Sri L. SRIDHAR,
V ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,
FAC, VI ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC), GUNTUR
Thursday, the 25th day of July, 2019.
S.C.No.460/2008
Between:
State: Inspector of Police, East L&O., Circle, Guntur.
...Complainant.
-V/s- 1.Nallapati Sivaiah, S/o.Sambaiah, aged 34 years, Rajaka, near R.C.M., School, Koritepadu, Guntur.
2.Katti Brahma Reddy, S/o.Sambasiva Reddy, aged 31 years, Reddy, H.No.4-6-33, Koritepadu, Guntur.
3.Kaluguri Naga Raju, S/o.Subba Rao, aged 29 years, Rajaka, N/o.Tadikonda, Now in Sarada Colony, Guntur.
4.Malladi Krishna, S/o.Veeraiah, aged 25 years, Yadava, Plot No.405, B-Block, 9th lane, Swarnabharathi Nagar, Guntur. (DIED-ABATED) 5.Davala @ Domala China Yakobu @ Yakobu, S/o.Abraham, aged 25 years, Madiga, besides Railway Track, near Manipuram Gate, Israielpet, Guntur.
6.Dharmaraju Radha Krishna, S/o.Brahmam, aged 25 years, Rajaka, Plot No.331, 8th lane, Swarnabharathi Nagar, Guntur.
7.Atla Srikanth Reddy, S/o.Rama Krishna Reddy, aged 27 years, Reddy, Redla Bazar, Koritepadu, Guntur.
8.Pagidimalli Mallikharjuna Rao @ Malli, S/o.Malakondaiah, aged 25 years, Rajaka, Swanabharathi Nagar, Guntur.
9.Karasani Siva Koti Reddy, S/o.Putta Reddy, aged 44 years, Karanamgari Veedhi, Koritepadu, Guntur.
10.Rachakonda Prakash, S/o.Sambaiah, aged 35 years, Rajaka, 5th lane, Mutyalareddy Nagar, Guntur.
11.Paturi Brahmaiah, S/o.Venkateswarlu, aged 35 years, Rajaka, 2nd 6 lane, Postal Colony, Guntur.
12.Byri Venkateswarlu @ Bujji, S/o.Sriramulu, aged 25 years, Rajaka, 5th lane, Mutyalareddy Nagar, Guntur.
13.Mallela Srinu, S/o.Balaiah, aged 35 years, Vaddera, Chinagarlapadu (V), Karampudi Mandal (DIED-ABATED)
...Accused.
This case came up before me on 11-7-2019 for hearing, in the presence of Additional Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of
Sri V. Raja Gopalachari, Advocate for the accused Nos.1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11 and 12; Sri A. Raghu Ram, Advocate for the accused No.2, 6 and 8;
Sri T. Deva Das, Advocate for A10 and upon perusing the material evidence on record and the matter having stood over for consideration to this day, the Court delivered the following::-
J U D G M E N T
The above case arises out of charge sheet filed in Crime
No.21/2008 of Kothapet L & O P.S. under Sections 120-B, 147, 148, 307, 302 r/w 149 IPC and Sec.3 and 5 of E.S. Act and Section 27 (1) of Arms Act against A1 to A13.
2.
The case of the prosecution in brief is mentioned as follows. It is stated that all the accused in this case except A13 are residents of Guntur Town, while A13 is resident of Karampudi
Mandal and all of them are close associates. The deceased by name Karasani Srinivasa Rao, who is the son of Venkataratnam is native of Pedapalakaluru village of Guntur Rural Mandal and used to move in Koretapadu area of Guntur town. The deceased was involved in as many as 40 criminal cases and further, during 1990, the deceased was detained under Section 3 of P.D. Act.
7
Hence, A+ Rowdy Sheet bearing No.A10 was maintained against the deceased in Arundelpet L&O P.S. The 1st accused by name
Nallapati Sivaiah is also A-Category history Rowdy Sheeter of
Arundelpet L&O P.S. of Guntur Town.
3.It is further stated that the father of the deceased by name Venkataratnam Nayudu was very active in politics in
Pedapalakaluru village of Guntur Rural Mandal and also in
Nayudupet, Guntur Town. He worked as Surpanch of Palakaluru village and resident of Guntur Rural Mandal also. He was having differences with the Kommirisetty family in Palakaluru village and that of the Etigadda family in Koretapadu, Guntur Town. In view of the above differences between the father of the deceased and
Etigadda family, during 1990, the father of the deceased
Venkataratnam Nayudu was murdered by Etigadda Hanimireddy and others and it is the subject matter of Cr.No.73/1990 of
Arundelpet L&O P.S. As such, the deceased who was a local bad hat by that time, started openly proclaiming to murder the said
Hanimireddy. One Nallapati Ankamma Rao, the elder brother of
A1 used to move with the said Etigadda family and in 1992, while under police custody, the said Etigadda Hanimireddy was murdered by the deceased along with his associates while he was going to his house from GGH, Guntur unauthorizedly near
Harihara Mahal, Guntur and it is the subject matter of
Cr.No.96/1992 of Arundelpet L&O P.S. Later, in December, 1995, the elder brother of A1 by name Ankamma Rao was murdered by one Imamvali and others in Guntur Town, which is the subject 8 matter of Cr.No.170/1995 of Arundelpet L&O P.S. Therefore, A1 was suspecting the deceased herein as the man behind the murder of Ankamma Rao and hence, A1 developed grudge against the deceased and has been openly proclaiming to do away with the assassins of his brother and the deceased herein.
In this backdrop, A1 had brutally murdered two of the assassins of his elder brother Ankamma Rao during 1998 and in 2000 and A1 was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment in one of the above murder cases. A1 was released from the Central Jail on 1-10- 2007 and after that, A1 had performed the marriage of the daughter of his elder brother Ankamma Rao with A8 and was waiting for an opportunity to do away with the deceased. In pursuance of his intention, A1 sought the support of A2 to A12 at the house of A8 and requested them to help him. Due to their friendship, all of them accepted to extend their co-operation and at that time, A11 offered to pay Rs.10,000/- as his share, but refused to participate in the offence. It was decided that A12 shall watch the movements of the deceased and to inform the same to A1. The 7th accused herein offered his Tata Indica Car for usage in the offence, while A9 came forward to spare a room of his house for preparation of Bombs.
4.As such, in order to deviate the attention of the deceased, A1 went to Karnataka and attended for work there for some time and has been in touch with the other accused. At the instance of A1, A3 took Rs.5,200/- from A8, brought A13 and got prepared 10 Bombs in the house of A9. On 20-2-2008, A1 came 9 from Bellary to Guntur and kept 9 Bombs prepared by A13 in a white plastic tin in husk, big knives in a green and white rexin bag and kept some clothes in the bag and secreted it in the house of
A8. During such time, A11 provided cash of Rs.10,000/- to A1, whereas, A4, A6 and A12 were asked to inform A1 over telephone about the movements of the deceased.
5.While the matter stand so, on 3-3-2008 at about 6-00
P.M., while A1 to A3, A5 and A10 were in the house of A8, A4 informed A1 over his cell phone that the deceased was available with his family at the Lodge centre. And as such, A1 instructed
A4 to follow up the vehicle and then, A1 along with A3 and A5 left on the bike of A1 with A5 carrying the bag containing the Bombs and knives while A3 was driving the bike. Further, A2 and A10 left on the bike of A1 and as per the information given by A4, it was learnt that the deceased along with his family members are available in the hospital of Dr. Maddineni Gopala Krishna. On 3-3- 2008 at about 6-45 P.M., A1 to A5 reached the cement road, opposite Leela Mahal, parked their bikes beside a car stopped there and kept the bag of Bombs and knives at the electrical pole. A4 came there and informed that he deputed A6 to watch the movements of the deceased in the hospital. At about 6-55
P.M., A4 received telephone call from A6 about the deceased coming out of the hospital and then, A1 took out three Bombs, A2 took a knife, A4 took a knife and A5 took an axe from bag and went to the hospital and stood infront of the Scorpio of the deceased. At a little distance away, A2 to A5 were standing 10 towards old Bus stand, while A10 was available at the motorcycles. The deceased along with P.W.1 came out of the hospital and walking towards Leela Mahal and at that time, A1 hurled a Bomb and thereupon, the deceased took to heels towards Leela Mahal, then A1 chased the deceased and hurled two more Bombs, when the deceased reached near Leela Mahal,
A4 and A5 overtook the deceased and pushed him and the deceased fell into the Aman Tea Stall, opposite Leela Mahal,
Guntur. On that, A2 to A5 had indiscriminately hacked the deceased with the knives and an axe available with them and the deceased died on the spot. After confirming that the deceased is no more, the accused left the Bombs bag there and escaped on the two motorcycles brought by them and the bike of A4 to Tenali discarding the knives and axe used by them enroute and from there to Chilakaluripet. In the early hours of 4-3-2008, A1 telephoned to A7, who was available in his in-laws house at
Chilakaluripet and A7 came with his Tata Indica Car bearing No.AP 09 AR 7518 to Kotappakonda Road and from there, A10 came back to Guntur with his motorcycle. The two motorcycles were parked in the in-laws’ house of A7 and from there, A7 drove the accused to Bellary in his car. The P.W.1, who lodged the complaint in this case also sustained injuries and on the report of
P.W.1, the said case was registered by the then Sub Inspector of
Police, Kothapet L&O P.S. i.e., P.W.19 as a case in Cr.No.21/2008 under Sections 147, 148, 307, 302 r/w 149 IPC. Basing on the confession of the accused, the Inspector of Police i.e., P.W.20 added A6 to A13 to the list of the accused and accordingly added 11
Section 140-B IPC, Section 27 of Arms Act. In pursuance of the confession of the arrestees on 28-3-2008, P.W.20 arrested A6 to
A9, A11 and A13 after giving a confession statement about their participation in the offence in the presence of L.W.19 and in pursuance of their confession, P.W.20 seized one Tata Indica Car bearing No.AP 09 AR 7518, two Nokia Cells, one Sony Ericson and one Spice Mobile phones from the possession of the accused under the cover of mahazar attested by P.W.13 and P.W.14 and sent the accused for remand. On 4-4-2008, A10 and A12 surrendered before the court and as such, P.W.20 took both A10 and A12 to police custody and examined them on 18-4-2008 in the presence of P.W.15 and L.W.24 before whom, A10 and A12 made a clear confession of their participation in the offence. In pursuance of their confession, he seized one Bike bearing No.AP 07AJ 1107 from the house of A10 under cover of mahazar attested by P.W.15 and L.W.24. On 21-4-2008, A5 surrendered
before the learned Court and as such, P.W.20 took A5 to Police
custody by examining him on 5-5-2008 in the presence of the mediators P.W.16 and L.W.26, before whom A5 made a clear confession of his participation in the offence. The Doctor i.e.
L.W.27, who examined P.W.1 opined that his injuries are simple in nature and L.W.28 i.e., P.W.18, who conducted autopsy over the body of the deceased opined that the deceased died due to head injury. Thus, the accused after having conspired together, form themselves into an unlawful assembly with deadly weapons, country made Bombs, big knives prohibited under Arms Act and brutally murdered the deceased and attempted on the life of 12
P.W.1 resulting simple injuries to him, rendered themselves liable for punishment under the above provisions as mentioned above.
6.The above case is taken into cognizance by the learned Magistrate for the offences under sections 120-B, 147, 148, 307, 302 r/w 149 IPC and Section 3 and 5 of E.S. Act and Section 27 of Arms Act and given number as PRC.27/2008 and as the offences under sections 120-B, 147, 148, 307, 302 r/w 149 of IPC and Section 3 and 5 of E.S. Act and Section 27 of Arms Act and ordered summons to all the accused. On their appearance before the court, copies of the documents furnished to all the accused as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C. On the examination of all the accused, for the accusation made, they denied the same. Hence, the charges under Sections 120-B r/w 149, 147 r/w 149, 148 r/w 149, 302, 307 r/w 149of IPC and Section 3 and 5 of E.S. Act and
Section 27 (1) of Arms Act against the accused A1 to A3 and A5 to
A13 are framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
7.In support of the prosecution, they examined P.Ws.1 to 20 and Exs.P1 to P20. On behalf of the defence, they also examined one witness as D.W.1 and further marked Exs.D1 to
D25 and M.Os.1 to 27 are marked on behalf of the prosecution.
8.After completion of prosecution side, the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C as to the incriminating 13 material got elicited from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which, he took total denial and reported to have evidence on their behalf as D.W.1. Heard arguments of both sides and posted for judgment.
9.Now the point for consideration is -
Whether the prosecution could bring home guilt of all
the accused beyond reasonable doubt?
10.The learned APP has argued that this is a case of brutal murder of the deceased by the accused 1 to 13 and in support of the same, they could examine the material witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 9 and also took support from the other evidence including independent, medical and that off the investigating officer. He further argued that all the witnesses before the court are consistent and corroborated with each other with regard to the exact incident and further the said evidence has got support from other witnesses including medical evidence as well as the investigating officer. Therefore, the learned APP claimed to have established the guilt of all the accused beyond reasonable doubt after denying the contradictions as not material.
11.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused argued that it is a false case foisted against all the accused though they are nothing to do with this offence. It is further argued that because of the serious enmity with the number of people, the deceased was murdered by some others at some 14 other place and later, after due deliberations and consultations the police people got prepared Ex.P1 report with P.W.1 and with his relations and foisted this false case by planting the material objects and other material record. The learned defence counsel has also drawn attention of this court to the evidence of above witnesses in detail by pointing out that they suffer from material contradictions and that they are inconsistent with each other with regard to the occurrence of incident and the nature of the weapons said to have been used in commission of the offence.
He also compared the evidence of P.W.1 with the wound certificate and argued that the injuries of P.W.1 are simple in nature which would not have been possible by splinters of exploded Bombs. Therefore, basing upon the above material, the learned defence counsel for all the accused disputed the presence of P.W.1 and other witnesses at the place of incident.
Hence, the learned defence counsel for all the accused submitted
before this court that, it is a false case foisted against all the
accused and hence they are entitled for clean acquittal.
12.On perusal of material on record, this is a case of a brutal murder of the deceased by name Karasani Srinivasa Rao on 3-3-2008 in the night hours at about 7-30 P.M. According to prosecution, the accused i.e., A1 to A13 came to the spot after having information as to the presence of the deceased near the place of incident, came there on their vehicles after having armed with knives, axes and country Bombs and after hurling three Bombs, A1 and A2 initially attacked the deceased with 15 knives and axes followed by the assault in the hands of other accused and thus the deceased died on the spot near Aman Tea
Stall, Leela Mahal centre. In support of the prosecution, they examined 20 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 20 and apart from the above evidence, they also marked Exs.P1 to P20 exhibits and also placed before the court the material objects i.e., M.Os.1 to 27.
Therefore, basing upon the above material and evidence, the prosecution tried to impress upon this court that the accused are liable for the death of the deceased. Undisputedly, the said incident has occurred on 3-3-2008 in the evening around 7-30
P.M., near Aman Tea Stall at Leela Mahal centre and also it is not in dispute that the deceased was murdered to death on the spot.
Immediately, he was shifted in 108 Ambulance to the Govt.,
General Hospital, Guntur and there he was declared as dead. Out of the above witnesses examined by the prosecution, all the witnesses spoke before the court about the death of the deceased at the time of the said incident. It is also not disputed by the accused with regard to the murder of the deceased on that fateful day, but their only objection is that none of the accused are responsible for the same. Out of the above evidence, the prosecution mainly relied upon the evidence of the mediators, who were present at the time of the inquest conducted on the dead body of the deceased. P.W.13 is the above inquestdar and as seen from the evidence, himself and L.W.19 were present at the time of inquest conducted on the dead body of the deceased at mortuary and also spoke about preparation of inquest panchanama i.e., Ex.P4, which contains his signature and also the 16 signatures of another mediator i.e., L.W.19 and Ramakrishna i.e.,
L.W.21. The above witnesses has clarified before the court that during the course of above inquest, they came to know that the deceased was murdered. Further, they also placed reliance upon the medical officer, who conducted postmortem on the dead body of the deceased. The said medical officer who is examined as
P.W.18, on receipt of requisition from the Inspector of Police, East
L&O Circle (P.W.20) on 4-3-2008, he conducted postmortem examination from 12-05 P.M., upto 1-35 P.M. During his examination, the medical officer found the following antimortem injuries present over the dead body of the deceased. (1) an irregular cut laceration present over back of the head extending over occiput upto parietal areas on both sides with fractured skull bone pieces and lacerated brain matter exposed out. The injury is of size 28 X 13 Cms., x brain deep, red in colour, margins irregular. (2) A cut laceration present over right parietal area of head, running backward and merging into the injury No.1 of size 10 X 1 Cms., x brain deep, red in colour and margins irregular. (3)
A cut laceration present over the back of right side of head from upper margin of ear, running backwards and downwards upto cervical spine (C-3 Level) of size 19 X 1.5 Cms., x skull deep, red in colour and margins irregular. (4) A cut laceration present over forehead from middle to the left horizontally placed of size 6 X 1.5
Cms., x brain deep, red in colour and margins irregular. (5) A cut laceration present extending from left cheek to backward, cutting through the lower portion of the ear upto the back of the ear of size 15 X 2 Cms., x bone deep, red in colour and margins 17 irregular. (6) A cut laceration present over left parietal area, running backwards merging into the injury No.1 of size 7 X 2
Cms., x brain deep, red in colour and margins irregular. (7) A contused abrasion present over upper part of left shoulder of size 7 X 3 Cms. (8) A contusion present over outer aspect of left shoulder of size 4 X 2 Cms. (9) A contusion present over right eye brow of size 1.5 X 1 Cms. (10) A depressed deformity present over root of the nose with fracture of nasal bones. (11) A semi lacerated linear contusion present over the outer aspect of left arm vertically placed of size 27 X 0.5 Cms., reddish in colour. (12)
An abrasion present over front of left chest, 3 Cms., below and outer to the nipple of size 6 X 2 Cms., reddish in colour. (13) An abrasion present over the front of left chest, 3 Cms., below to the above injury of size 2 X 2 Cms., reddish in colour. (14) A cut laceration present over outer aspect of left forearm, 5 Cms., below to elbow cutting through the radius of size 6 X 2 Cms., x bone deep, red in colour and margins irregular. (15) A cut laceration present over lower part aspect of fore arm, 6 Cms., above to the wrist of size 5 X 3 Cms., x muscle deep, red in colour and margins irregular. (16) A cut laceration present over upper part of left wrist of size 4 X 2 Cms., x bone deep red in colour and margins irregular. (17) A cut laceration present over front of left hand over hypothenar eminence of size 6 X 3 Cms., x muscle deep, red in colour and margins irregular. (18) A cut laceration present over front of right thumb of size 5 X 2 Cms., x muscle deep, red in colour and margins irregular. (19) A cut laceration present over front of left hand over Thenar eminence of size 4 X 2 18
Cms., x muscle deep, red in colour and margins irregular. (20) A contusion present over outer aspect of right arm, just above to elbow of size 3 X 1 Cms., (21) A linear contused abrasion present extending from right elbow to fore arm with tailing distally of size 15 X 1 Cms., reddish in colour. (22) A contusion present over back of right elbow of size 3 X 1 Cms., (23) A cut laceration present over right thumb upto Hypothenar eminence of size 7 X 3
Cms., x muscle deep, red in colour and margins irregular. (24)
Multiple irregular blast marks of various sizes with loss of skin hair present extending over front of both legs and dorsum of feet.
13.Out of the above injuries, the injuries Nos.1 to 6 are the head injuries and they are cut lacerations. Further, the other injuries are found on the other parts of the body i.e., neck and chest. However, the medical officer has opined that the injuries
Nos.1 to 6 as mentioned above are sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death of a person. In addition to the above injuries, the medical officer also found irregular blast marks with loss of hair and skin extending over front of both legs and dorsum of feet which indicates to have resulted of bomb explosions. Accordingly, he issued postmortem certificate, which is marked as Ex.P11 with opinion that the cause of death to the best of his knowledge and belief was due to head injury and the deceased died 12 to 18 hours prior to postmortem examination.
Therefore, in the light of the above material and evidence of medical officer, certainly the death of the deceased is not a
natural death and is a homicidal as done to death by
19
causing the above injuries with the respective weapons.
The above evidence also discloses that he also preserved two skin bits with subcutaneous tissues from both right and left lower legs and ankles for chemical analysis preserved in distilled water for analysis of exposing material and the same were sent to the
Director, Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad, A.P. for analysis under Ex.P12 letter. However, as mentioned supra, by taking in totality of the evidence of the medical officer, who conducted postmortem on the dead body of the deceased and other witnesses including his relatives as well as the mediator at inquest, it can be safely held that the deceased Karasani
Srinivasa Rao was murdered to death. Thus, the prosecution established the death of the deceased Karasani Srinivasa Rao and also established the same as homicidal death as he was murdered to death.
14.Now, the question that arises for consideration is to ascertain as to who caused the death of the deceased. In support of the same, the prosecution mainly relied upon the evidence of
P.Ws.1 to 9 who are family members and known persons of deceased. The main objection from the accused is that the accused are falsely implicated in this case and further, the presence of P.W.1 and other witnesses at the time of occurrence is highly improbable and doubtful because of the discrepancies found in between Ex.P1 report and the 161 statements as well as the evidence of the above witnesses. The learned defence counsel for the accused has also drawn attention of this court to 20 the above evidences in detail. Out of the above witnesses examined by the prosecution, undisputedly, P.W.1 is nephew of the deceased, P.W.2 is wife of the deceased, P.W.3 is elder sister of the deceased, P.W.4 is wife of P.W.1 and P.Ws.5 to 7 are the relatives of the deceased. Therefore, it has been argued that all the above witnesses are interested witnesses and further argued that their assistance was taken by the investigating officers only to prevent any hostility from the witnesses though the above witnesses were not an eye witnesses to the occurrence. It has been strongly argued that P.Ws.1 to 9, who are related to the deceased were not present at the time of the incident and that after the above incident, the investigating officers after completion of the inquest, planted all the above witnesses after due consultations and deliberations. Therefore, the names of A3 to A13 are not found in Ex.P1 report and their 161 statements and further, the names of other accused were found in Ex.P1 report besides A1 and A2 though their names were deleted later. The learned defence counsels mainly relied upon the above discrepancy to impress upon this court that it is a false case foisted after showing the innocent people only by way of imagination and illusions.
15.On perusal of the evidence of P.W.1, he is the person, who presented the report on 3-3-2008 to the police people after the above incident. As seen from the endorsements of the said report i.e., Ex.P1, it is found to have been received by the police concerned on 3-3-2008 at 10-00 P.M., and registered the same 21 immediately. During the evidence of P.W.1, immediately after the incident, the dead body of the deceased was shifted in 108
Ambulance within 15 minutes and they have reached the Govt.,
General Hospital, Guntur at 8-00 P.M., where the duty Doctor declared the deceased as dead. It is also found that he did not find the police people at that time, but finally, he got prepared
Ex.P1 report with one of the followers of the deceased and handed over the same to the police officials present at mortuary.
It is also found from his evidence that the drafting of Ex.P1 report was completed by 9-30 P.M. and it was handed over to the police at 10-00 P.M. The counsel for the accused took objection at this stage that Ex.P1 report and the FIR i.e., Ex.P13 were hit by
Section 162 Cr.P.C. According to the counsel for the accused, even before lodging Ex.P1 report or registration of the case, the police people came to the spot and initiated the investigation procedure. At this stage, it is pertinent to go through the evidence of investigating officers, who are examined as P.Ws.19 and 20. P.W.19 is the then Sub Inspector of Police, Kothapet, L&O
P.S. and according to him, on that day at about 7-00 P.M., himself and Inspector of Police i.e., P.W.20 and his staff were conducting checking infront of Andhra Muslim College, Old Guntur and at about 7-45 P.M., they received information about this incident near Aman Tea Stall. It further shows that immediately, himself and P.W.20 rushed to that place and found about 50 persons gathered at the scene and also found one person in pool of blood.
By which time, 108 Ambulance was already there. Then, P.W.19 and his staff shifted the injured into 108 Ambulance to GGH, 22
Guntur and later, the Casualty Doctor declared him as dead though the wife and mother of the deceased and 500 people gathered there, he could not secure any report from mother and wife of the deceased because of their sad mood. Then, the dead body of the deceased was shifted to mortuary and at about 10-00
P.M. they received Ex.P1 report from P.W.1 at mortuary.
Accordingly, the P.W.19, the Sub Inspector returned to the police station and registered the said report as a case in Cr.No.21/2008 of Kothapet L&O P.S. under Sections 147, 148, 307 and 302 r/w 149 IPC and Section 3 and 5 of E.S. Act and issued Ex.P13 FIR and handed over the investigation to the Inspector on the same day at 10-30 P.M. while he was at the scene of offence. The evidence of P.W.20, the then Inspector also corroborated on the same lines of P.W.19. It is also found from the evidence of P.W.20 as if, he initiated the investigation after receipt of FIR from the Sub
Inspector i.e., P.W.19 and accordingly, informed the incident to clues team and then, the Dog Squad and Bomb disposal Squad were pressed into service. Then, within 20 minutes, the Bomb
Disposal Squad arrived and detected 6 Bombs kept in husk in a white plastic can which was sealed with polythin sheet near the scene of offence and then, they were got defused. The police
Dog also came there and after giving sent at the scene of offence, the police Dog moved in the area and went to the cement road situated opposite Leela Mahal road towards Pothuvari Thota and then took a right turn to the main road went to the Church situated on the Market and from there, went to Old Bus stand and stopped there. Then, he also conducted scene observation in the 23 presence of mediators i.e., P.W.13 and L.W.19 and inspected the scene of offence and conducted scene observation and prepared scene observation report i.e., Ex.P3. They also got photographed the scene and filed bunch of 23 photographs along with negatives, which are marked as Ex.P2. He also prepared rough sketch i.e., Ex.P4 and seized in the presence of the same mediators i.e., Bomb Remnants (M.O.2), Gold colour Matrix
Renaults, Gold Black colour pen (two pieces) i.e., M.O.3, Dockers
Black colour Hat (M.O.4), Sony Ericson Cell phone cover (M.O.5), white half boot (M.O.6), Pair of Haway Cheppals (M.O.7), Sony
Black colour pair of Cheppals (M.O.8), Left Black pair of Cheppals (M.O.9), Black Cheppals two in number i.e., M.O.10, Lancer Brown colour Cheppal one piece (M.O.11), Right Cheppal with Sunny
Black (M.O.12), Synthetic Cheppal one piece (M.O.13), Polo Brown colour Travel Bag (M.O.14), Black colour Left Cheppal (M.O.15),
Coconut cutting axe (M.O.16), Hunting sickle (M.O.17), Broken spectacles (M.O.18). These are some of the material objects that were found by P.W.20 the investigating officer at the scene of offence and also seized in the presence of mediators. Further he also seized blood stained swab i.e., M.O.19, controlled swab (M.O.20) and cloth pieces and twine pieces (M.O.21). His evidence further shows that on the next day itself i.e., on 4-3- 2008 at about 8-45 A.M., he visited mortuary of GGH, Guntur and secured the presence of the same mediators and conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased starting from 9-00
A.M., till 2-00 P.M., and conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased and prepared Ex.P4 inquest report. It also shows 24 that during the inquest, he examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and L.W.3 and recorded their statements and also found blood stained white
Terri Cotton pant with signs of Bomb explosive marks and also found jockey coco light cement colour cut drawyer, blood stained white half hands cotton shirt, blood stained white cut banyan and two rows of red colour waist thread found on the dead body of the deceased. Further, on the same day, P.W.20 visited the scene of offence and Aswini Hospital and secured the presence of other witnesses by recording their statements. He also examined one
Chimata Siva Babu and Patella Nageswara Rao on 8-3-2008 and recorded their statements along with one Shaik Subhani, Bandaru
Seshagiri Rao and Meda Lakshmaiah. He also visited Piduguralla on 14-3-2008 and secured the presence of K. Rama Gopala Reddy and Sivasena Siva Reddy and recorded their statements and further on 16-3-2008, he visited Pedapalakaluru village and examined one Palakaluru Venkateswarlu and recorded his detailed statement. Later, on 18-3-2008, he initiated all the formalities by way of requisition before IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge
Court, Guntur for sending seized material for analysis purpose and started enquiring of the accused on 19-3-2008. It is also found that on 27-3-2008, on credible information, he secured the presence of P.W.19 and his staff and proceeded to Mirchi Yard area and secured the presence of P.Ws.13 and 14 and while checking the vehicle at about 12-00 Noon, they noticed two motorcycles coming from Chilakaluripet Y-junction side and took them into custody, among whom, they identified one Nallapati Sivaiah (A1),
Kathi Brahma Reddy (A2), Kalluri Nagaraju (A3) and Malladi 25
Krishna (A4). They also conducted search and found a hunting sickle in the possession of A1 and also noticed two bikes in their possession i.e., Suzuki Red colour Bike bearing N0.AP 7H 4882 and Hero Honda Splendor Maroon Black, bearing Regn. N0.AP 07
AQ 5726 and after recording their confessional statements separately arrested A1 to A4 and seized two bikes, four cell phones and hunting sickle under the cover of Ex.P5 mahazar (admissible portion). The above bikes seized from the accused are marked as M.Os.22 and 23, hunting knife as M.O.1 and four
Nokia Cell phones seized from the above accused are marked as
M.O.24. Then, all the above four accused were taken back to
Kothapet P.S. and kept them in the lock up and in pursuance of the statement given by A1 under Ex.P5, they took A1, P.W.19 and the staff and the mediators i.e., P.Ws.13 and 14 and rushed to
Teja Daba Hotel, near Namburu village, cross road and there at about 10-00 P.M., they took the custody of A6 to A9, A11 and A13 after having been identified by A1, who were coming in Tata
Indica Car bearing No.AP 09AR 7518 and then, they were examined separately and basing upon their statements, they were arrested at 2-00 A.M. and seized the said Tata Indica Car i.e.,
M.O.25 and seized one Sony Ericson mobile phone, two Nokia Cell phones and one Spice Mobile phone, which are marked as M.O.26, which were seized in the presence of mediators under the cover of Ex.P6 mahazar. They were also brought back to the police station and kept under lock up. It was also found that in pursuance of statement of P.W.9, they took him to his house and examined the same in the presence of mediators, but could not 26 find any incriminating material there. Thereafter the above accused were produced before the court on 28-3-2008 for judicial remand and later on 30-3-2008, he visited Piduguralla and secured K. Brahma Reddy and examined by recording his statement. They also visited Pedapalakaluru on 4-4-2008 and secured the presence of Pinaluri Edukondalu, Meda Srinu, Jetti
Kamalakar and Aluri Narasimha Reddy and examined them by recording their detailed statements. He also examined P.W.9 on 7-4-2008 at Pedapalakaluru by recording his statement and later, on 18-4-2008, they took A10 and A12 to police custody and examined them in the presence of P.W.15 and L.W.24 by recording their statements and then, A10 lead them to his house and produced Hero Honda Splendor bearing No.AP 07 AJ 1107, which was used in the commission of offence and accordingly, it was seized under Ex.P8 mahazar and it is exhibited as M.O.27 and accordingly, they were handed over to the court for judicial custody on the next day morning. It is also found that on 5-5- 2008, they took A5, who surrendered before the court into police custody and examined him in the presence of Bathula Koteswara
Rao and Bure Rambabu by recording his statement under a cover of a mahazar. It is also found that on 20-6-2008, he receive a copy of FSL report from the court with opinion that the blood on the M.Os. is human blood and then, he obtained copy of FSL report from the court about the defused Bombs sent in which the
FSL authorities opined that radicals in the M.Os. are the ingredients of low explosive materials generally used in the preparation of country made Bombs and later, he obtained 27 prosecution orders in this case under Sections 3 and 5 of E.S. Act by filing a requisition before Superintendent of Police. The above letter of advices sent to the learned Magistrate 3 in number are marked as Ex.P15 and the above opinions given by FSL and letter addressed are marked as Exs.P16 to P18. On going through the evidence of P.W.20, the Inspector of Police, it is also found that he filed a memo for deletion of the accused shown in FIR namely
Komirisetty Sambasiva Rao, Kandula Ramana, Kandula Brahmam,
Komirisetty Ramachandar Rao, Komirisetty Sivaiah and
Komirisetty Venkata Rao on 23-6-2008 by duly obtaining permission from Superintendent of Police, Guntur before the learned IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Guntur after finding no involvement of the above accused in the commission of offence and the said memo is marked as Ex.P19. He also filed the attested copy of the prosecution orders issued by District
Collector, Guntur, dt.10-7-2008, which is marked as Ex.P10 (marked subject to filing for filing Photostat copy) and it is marked as Ex.P10 as there is no dispute from other. Therefore, as seen from the above evidence of investigating officers i.e., P.Ws.19 and 20 by comparing with the evidence of P.W.1, the investigation was initiated by the police officials only after receipt of Ex.P13 FIR from P.W.19 (S.I. of Police) at 10-30 P.M. after receipt of Ex.P1 report from P.W.1 at 10-00 P.M. Though, P.W.19 was directed by the Inspector to shift the deceased to the Govt., Hospital in 108
Ambulance by directing him to secure the report from their relatives for registration of the case and though he took steps in the meantime by informing Bomb Squads, Dog Squads and Clues 28
Team, but the original investigation has started only after registration of the case by issuing Ex.P13 FIR. Therefore, in the light of the above material and evidence, there is no investigation initiated by the police officials prior to registration of the case and hence, it is not hit by Section 162 Cr.P.C. and accordingly, the above argument of the learned defence counsel has no basis.
16.It is the main argument of the accused that A3 to A13 shown in the charge sheet are not found in Ex.P1 report. It is also their argument that except A1 and A2, the names of other persons mentioned in Ex.P1 report are not found in the charge sheet. On careful scrutiny of Ex.P1 report with charge sheet, the names of A1 and A2 i.e., Nallapati Sivaiah and Kathi Brahma
Reddy are shown in Ex.P1 report and besides the same they have shown the names of Komirisetty Sambasiva Rao, Kandula Raman,
Kandula Brahmam, Komirisetty Ramachandar Rao, Komirisetty
Sivaiah, Komirisetty Venkata Rao. On coming to charge sheet, after completion of the entire investigation, the Inspector of
Police, deleted the names of the above persons except showing the names of A1 and A2 in the charge sheet along with others.
He also filed the proceedings of S.P. before this court as to deletion of the above names. It is also to be noted that on coming to charge sheet, besides A1 and A2 i.e., Nallapati Sivaiah and Kathi Brahma Redy, the Inspector has shown K. Nagaraju,
Malladi Krishna, Domala China Yacob, Dharmaraju Radhakrishna,
Atla Srikanth Reddy, P. Mallikharjuna Rao, K. Siva Koti Reddy,
Rachakonda Prakash, Paturi Brahmaiah, Byri Venkateswarlu @ 29
Bujji and Mallela Srinu as A3 to A13. Therefore, because of the above variation, the learned counsels for the accused took serious objection regarding the above variation in between Ex.P1 report and charge sheet for the above deletion of the accused from Ex.P1 report and also for addition of A3 to A13 in the charge sheet. According to prosecution, basing upon the statements of the witnesses and basing upon the contradictions marked as
Ex.D1 to D24, the above proceedings were issued by deleting the names of the accused, who were shown in Ex.P1 report along with
A1 and A2. However, in both Ex.P1 complaint and charge sheet, the names of A1 and A2 i.e., Nallapati Sivaiah and Kathi Brahma reddy are found in both. The variation is only with regard to the other accused. Even in Ex.P1 report also, the P.W.1 has categorically given the names of other offenders apart from the names of A1 and A2. Even at the time of evidence also, the P.W.1 in his chief-examination deposed by attributing overt acts only against A1 and A2 specifically while giving general overt acts against other accused. During the evidence of P.W.1, he has mentioned the names of A1 and A2 only, who deposed to have hacked the deceased with knives and axes after hurling Bombs followed by assault by other accused. He also clarified that he does not know the names of other accused except A1 and A2.
Even from the evidence of other witnesses, who are related to the deceased, they also attributed specific overt acts only against A1 and A2 without disclosing the names of the other accused. They also clarified before the court that they do not know the names of the other accused.
30
17.On coming to the above discrepancy with regard to the names of other accused shown in Ex.P1 report apart from A1 and
A2, the P.W.1 during his cross-examination clarified as if he has seen the above deleted persons in a Scorpio vehicle and therefore, he could mention their names in Ex.P1 report. He also deposed before the court in his cross-examination that while drafting Ex.P1 report by the scribe to his dictation, he did not give those names, but they were mentioned by the scribe. Therefore, there is any amount of discrepancy in between the above statements of P.W.1 and they are self contradictory.
Undisputedly, there is a rivalry in between the deceased and
Komirisetty family and further, the P.W.1 deposed to have seen them in a Scorpio vehicle while they were passing from that place and hence mentioned their names. But, however, as seen from the contradictions marked as Exs.D1 to D24, it is clear that the above witnesses did not state before the police in their statements about the alleged role of Komirisetty Sambasiva Rao,
Kandula Ramana, Kandula Brahmam, Komirisetty Ramachandar
Rao, Komirisetty Sivaiah and Komirisetty Venkata Rao and as seen from the said contradictions, it is clear that the said witnesses who are main witnesses in this case categorically denied any of their role in this incident. Thus in view of above Ex.D1 to D24 contradictions, the said main witnesses made specific overt acts only against A1 and A2 by giving general overt acts against other persons while denying role of other persons whose names were deleted by the prosecution as per proceedings of S.P. Therefore, 31 basing upon the above statements of the witnesses, the proceedings were issued by the S.P by deleting those names from this case and filed charge sheet against A1 and A2 by showing other names of the accused as A3 to A13 as mentioned above.
However, even at the time of evidence also, the role of A3 to A13 is not clearly spoken by the witnesses except attributing specific overt acts only against A1 and A2. Out of the above accused in the charge sheet, A4 and A13 were died during the course of trial and thus, the case against A4 and A13 is abated and proceeding with trial against A1 to A3 and A5 to A12 only.
18.On coming to the evidence of above witnesses, the
P.Ws.1 to 9 are consistent with regard to the presence of A1 and
A2 specifically, who deposed to have hacked the deceased after throwing Bombs. Therefore, the deceased along with P.W.1 ran towards Aman Tea Stall situated at Leela Mahal road and there, he was hacked by A1 and A2 with others with knives and axes and done him to death. The P.W.1 is not only the eye witness, but also an injured person. He sustained simple injuries on his abdomen and left knee. According to P.W.1, he sustained the above injuries due to splinters of hurled Bombs. He also examined the medical officer. The prosecution also taken support of the medical evidence of the Doctor who is examined as P.W.17 and who examined P.W.1 on that day. On perusal of his evidence, the Doctor has examined P.W.1 on 4-3-2008 at 11-15
A.M. and found a contusion on left lower abdomen and a small contusion on left below knee joint. He issued Ex.P10 wound 32 certificate with opinion that they are simple in nature. According to P.W.1, the above injuries were sustained by him due to splinters of hurled Bombs, but the learned defence counsel for the accused has taken serious objection that the above injuries of P.W.1 as mentioned by the medical officer would not be possible. It is also their argument that if a person receives a injury due to a splinter of a Bomb, the injury should be a signed wound. But, the medical officer has extended the clarification in his evidence that the above injuries 1 and 2 may be caused by the splinters of Bomb explosion. The accused are relied upon a Judgment of Hon’ble
Supreme Court in a case between Mayur Pana Bhai Shah,
Appellant Vs. State of Gujarath Respondent reported in
1982 Crl.L.J. 1972, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court
has been pleased to hold that there is no presumption
that Doctor is always a witness of truth and his evidence
has to be appreciated like that of any other witnesses.
Therefore, basing upon the above legal position, the learned defence counsel requested this court not to consider the evidence of the above medical officer. It is also argued that when the incident has occurred at about 7-30 P.M., the P.W.1 was examined on the next day at 11-15 A.M., and had really he sustained the injuries, he would have been referred by the police themselves soon after receipt of Ex.P1 report for medical examination.
Therefore, there is any amount of delay in medical examination of
P.W.1 as argued by the learned defence counsel. It is true that, it is brought before the court from the evidence of P.W.1 that soon after the incident, they followed the deceased in 108 Ambulance 33 to GGH, Guntur, but he was not subjected to medical examination either from P.W.1 side himself or from the police side immediately and subsequent to receipt of Ex.P1 report only, he was subjected to the medical examination. The learned defence counsel also examined D.W.1 by summoning original of Accident Register, which is marked as Ex.D25. It is also pointed out by the counsel
for the accused that there are no particulars in the wound
certificate through whom he was referred to the hospital for medical examination. As seen from Ex.D25 extract, i.e., extract of
Accident Register, the P.W.1 is found to have been accompanied by P.C.764 of Old Guntur P.S. On perusal of the above injuries, it has to be born in mind that the above injuries sustained by P.W.1 are not that much serious injuries and they are superficial injuries which are not necessary to be treated immediately. Further, when the deceased, who is the uncle of P.W.1 was murdered in such a condition, the P.W.1 and other relatives would have been in a such tensed condition and they would have been shocked on seeing such a horrible and brutal incident and therefore, we cannot expect him to take care of himself by going first to the medical examination by leaving the deceased on the road and hospital. Further, undisputedly, as brought out before the court, number of the people came to the hospital on learning of this incident and definitely the P.W.1 would have neglected for subjecting him to medical examination because of the brutal death of the deceased. Any of the people in such condition as in the case of P.W.1 and other relatives had to take time off to help the family member of the deceased and they had not wanted to 34 leave the deceased on their own. It is also to be born in mind that the loss of a loved one is life’s most stressful event and can cause a major emotional crisis. After the death of some one like the deceased, the P.W.1 and other family members experience bereavement which literally means to be deprived by death.
Further when a death takes place, they may experience wide range of emotions and many people report feeling an initial stage of numbness after first learning of a death and it takes time to fully absorb the impact of a major loss and the pain eases after time and then allows them to recover. It is also found from the cross-examination of medical officer that he treated P.W.1 as outpatient though the medical officer deposed about not finding any burns and blast marks on the body of P.W.1, but however, they found contusions on the body of P.W.1. It is also found that at the time of postmortem examination of the deceased, the medical officer has collected skin flaps by preserving in distilled water and sent the same for analysis and finally they received
FSL report by finding explosive substances in the material objects.
It has been held by Honourable Supreme Court in a case
between Yogesh Singh Vs. Mahabeer Singh & others
reported in 2017 CRL.L.J.291 that minor contradictions,
inconsistencies or insignificant embellishments do not
affect core of prosecution and cannot be taken as ground
to reject prosecution evidence. Therefore, in the light of the above evidence of P.W.1 and other witnesses, it is a fact that
Bombs made with low powered explosive material as opined by the FSL expert as mentioned supra, were exploded at some 35 distances initially and then the deceased was subjected to death in the hands of A1 and A2 and others. It is also the evidence of
P.W.1 and other witnesses that the Bombs were exploded at some distance from the place of P.W.1 and therefore, he would not have sustained any burn injuries on his body. Therefore, the said objection taken by the accused is not a material one to be considered land on the other hand, they are only the minor contradictions which cannot carry any weight. . Therefore, much consideration may not be given to such delay of medical examination of P.W.1. Hence the facts of the above citation relied upon by the learned defence counsel are not applicable to the facts on hand.
19.It is also contention of the accused is that the inquest report was leisurely and perfunctorily prepared by the police and it is prepared at police station and hence there are number of contradictions between the statements of P.Ws.1 to 5 and column
No.15 of Ex.P4 inquest report. It has been argued by the learned defence counsel that there has been complete variation in between statements of witnesses recorded during inquest and that of statements of the witnesses recorded under section 161
Cr.P.C. with regard to particulars of assailants who said to have attacked the deceased. It is true that there are some discrepancies in between the statements as mentioned supra but the object of inquest report is only to know apparent cause of death but not for any other purpose. Further this court already held that those contradictions are only with regard to role of other 36 assailants as mentioned in FIR who are not found in charge sheet and who have been deleted by I.O. but not regarding main accused who are A1 and A2. It has been held by Honourable
Supreme Court in a case between Amarsingh Vs.
Balwinder Singh and Ors reported in AIR 2003 SC 1164
that the provision for holding of an inquest and preparing
an inquest report is contained in Section 174 Cr.P.C. and
the requirement of section is that the police officer shall
record the apparent cause of death describing the wounds
as may be found on the body and also the weapon or
instrument by which they appear to have been inflicted
and this has to be done in the presence of two or more
respectable inhabitants of the neighbourhood. It is
further held that the section does not contemplate that
the manner in which the incident took place or the names
of the accused should be mentioned in the inquest report
and the basic purpose of holding an inquest is to report
regarding the apparent cause of death, namely whether it
is suicidal, homicidal accidental or by some machinery
etc. Therefore on coming to facts on hand, as contended by the learned defence counsel though there are variations in the statements of witnesses as recorded at the time of inquest and at other times, but it does not cause any damage to the prosecution and such variations at the time of inquest shall not be taken in to consideration as it is not for that purpose but only for eliciting apparent cause of death and also for describing wounds that are found on the dead body and also about the weapons with which 37 they might have been inflicted. Hence the facts of the above citation are applicable to this case and the said objection cannot be considered as fatal as this court has already given sufficient explanation above.
20.Another contention of the accused is that the deceased was having rivalry with number of persons and therefore, he might have been killed by others, but foisted this false case against the accused herein. Undisputedly, both the deceased and
A1 herein belonged to rival groups and the enmity had been existed in between them since long back. It is brought before the court that both the deceased and A1 are rowdy sheeters and further, after the father of the deceased was murdered by one
Etigadda Hanimireddy, the deceased alleged to have murdered the said Hanimireddy and his associates. It is also brought before the court that the elder brother of A1 by name Nallapati
Hanumantha Rao is also associate with Hanimireddy and the said
Hanumantha Rao was also murdered by one Imamvali and others and thereupon, A1 suspected the deceased herein behind the murder of Hanumantha Rao and since then, A1 was waiting for an opportunity to take revenge. The witnesses were questioned by the learned defence counsels by way of suggestions about the involvement of the deceased in about 40 crimes. But, the relatives of the deceased i.e., P.W.1, P.W.2, who is the wife of the deceased and other witnesses claimed innocence of the involvement of the deceased in other cases. The P.W.1 claimed innocence at the time of cross-examination about the 38 involvement of the deceased in two murder cases, one case of murder attempt, five cases under Arms Act, two cases under
NDPS Act, Two cases of Rioting, One case of Kidnap, one case of extortion, two cases of causing hurt, two cases of Eve teasing, six cases of criminal intimidation and trespass, two cases of theft, two cases of damage of public property, one case of fatal road accident and other cases within the jurisdiction of Guntur Rural.
They also claimed innocence about keeping the deceased in
Rajahmundry central Jail under P.D. Act. They further denied with regard to the allegation of abduction of one lady Advocate of
Guntur Bar Association and rape by the deceased. Therefore, as seen from the above evidence on record, the deceased has got enmity with number of the people including Komirisetty families,
Etigadda families, one Cheppula Srinu, Venu Gopala Rao and
Thomas and though the above witnesses claimed innocence of the same, but according to the prosecution side, it has been undisputed fact about the involvement of the deceased in number of cases being maintained A+ rowdy sheet against him and also his rivalry with number of the people. Therefore the above innocence of the witnesses about his involvement in number of cases, cannot be believed. But, at the same time, it is not in dispute that A1 is also said to be rowdy sheeter as alleged by the prosecution and having rivalry with the deceased. Though the learned defence counsel has attributed the liability behind the murder of the deceased against others, but the prosecution drawn attention of this court to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Undisputedly, the above incident has taken place near 39
Aman Tea Stall at Leela Mahal Theatre on 3-3-2008 in the night at about 7-30 P.M. It is their evidence of all the witnesses that on that day one K. Veeramma, the maternal aunt of the deceased was admitted in the hospital of one Maddineni Gopala Krishna for piles operation and on the said day morning, an operation was done and therefore, P.W.1 along with P.W.2, P.W.4 and others visited the hospital to see his maternal aunt. They all went there in Scorpio Van and after visiting and after spending for about 15 minutes in the hospital and when they were leaving the hospital, the above attack was laid on the deceased. All the above witnesses were consistent before the court in their evidence that the P.W.1, who is nephew of the deceased accompanied him to the hospital and on their return, both deceased and P.W.1 were proceeding ahead followed by their family members just before the attack. During the course of the above evidence, out of the above accused, A1 and A2 said to have hurled Bombs on the deceased initially and immediately on hearing the explosion both the deceased and P.W.1 ran towards Leela Mahal Theatre and then the deceased was hacked by A1 and A2 with axe and knives and then, hacked by other accused. Out of the above witnesses, the P.W.1 specifically attributed the overt acts against both A1 and A2, who said to have attacked the deceased with an axe on the head of the deceased, resulting which the deceased received bleeding injury on his left forehead, back side of forehead and on his two hands and then he fell on the road in a pool of blood. He further deposed that some other persons whose names are not known to him, stabbed the deceased with knives and caused 40 injuries and fled away from there. Therefore, the P.W.1 during his evidence has identified only A1 and A2 in the said attack, but claimed innocence of the particulars of the other persons. At the same time, P.W.2, who is the wife of the deceased also corroborated P.W.1 by attributing specific overt acts against A1 and A2 in the above incident. So also, P.W.3, who is the sister of the deceased gave specific overt acts against A1 and A2 in assaulting the deceased by A1 and A2 with axes. On coming to the evidence of P.W.4, who is the wife of P.W.1 also gave specific overt acts only against A1 and A2 in the said attack. Even the other witnesses also gave specific overt acts against A1 and A2 only though gave general reference against other accused.
However, the local witnesses i.e., P.Ws.10 and 11, who are the cashier of Aman Tea Stall and a Pawn shop owner by the side of
Aman Tea Stall were examined, but they turned hostile inspite of admitting as to the occurrence of the above incident. Both
P.Ws.10 and 11 are the independent witnesses and they did not support the case of the prosecution and according to them, immediately after any explosion they ran away from that place and came back later. It is true that it is a natural conduct of any person, who try to take shelter hurriedly in the stage of anxiousness immediately after hearing the Bomb explosions followed by such a brutal incident and definitely they would run away from that place, therefore, we cannot expect P.Ws.10 and 11 to remain at that place when such explosion taken place followed by such a brutal assault on the deceased. Furthermore, the P.W.1, who is the nephew and close associate of the deceased 41 followed the deceased immediately after Bomb explosion towards
Leela Mahal centre and therefore, he could have seen the assault on the deceased by A1 and A2. In the same way, P.W.2, who is the wife of the deceased definitely run towards the deceased, who is none other than her husband when he was being attacked by others and it is such a natural conduct to be expected from the wife who tries to reach her husband without any fear at the time of such a brutal incident. We also cannot doubt the presence of
P.W.2, who is none other than the wife of the deceased at that place. Further the other witnesses who are close relatives cannot be doubted about their presence and all the above witnesses i.e.,
P.Ws.1 to 9 are none other than the relatives of the deceased and as all of them went to hospital on that day to see K. Veeramma, they are considered to be chance witnesses and definitely they would have been present at the time of incident. It is also settled legal position that no one would leave the real culprits in such cases by implicating the innocent people and the aggrieved parties always try to show the real culprits in such cases. Further, all the above witnesses have categorically deposed by cogent and consistent evidence about the presence of A1 and A2 on that day and also about their role in attacking the deceased with axes and knives after hurling Bombs. Though the learned defence counsel tried to rely upon the contradictions marked as Exs.D1 to D24, but they are material only in respect of the role of A3 to A12, but they do not affect the entire case of the prosecution as against A1 and A2. There is a Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in a
case between Akthar and others Vs. State of Uttaranchal
42
reported in 2009 (2) ALD Crl 522 SC, wherein it has been
held by the Hon’ble 3 Judge Bench that when the
testimony of injured eye witnesses consistent and further
corroborated by medical evidence, the minor
contradictions in prosecution version would not render
trial fatal. It is also held that failure of the prosecution to
prove recovery of pistol is no ground to disbelieve the
testimony of injured witnesses. In this case also, the investigating officer recovered all the material objects including
M.O.1 Long knife, Coconut cutting axe i.e. MO.16, Hunting sickle i.e.Mo17, but could not recover the other weapons used by others. However, they also seized unexploded Bombs, which were got defused with the help of Bomb Disposal Squad. The learned counsel for the accused argued that the prosecution also failed to recover all the weapons said to have been used in the commission of offence and hence it is fatal to the case. As seen from the evidence and material on record, it has been evidence
before court that the accused 1 and 2 and other said to have
used knives, axes and bombs while attacking the deceased. It is also their case that after commission of offence, the accused and other culprits left running from that place and secreted the weapons enroute. However the I.O. shown to have recovered long knife i.e. M.O.1 from the first accused and other material objects including one coconut knife but could not recover other weapons except unexploded bombs. It has been held by Honourable
Supreme Court in a case between Akhtar and others Vs.
State of Uttaranchal reported in 2009(2) ALD (Crl) 522
43
that failure of prosecution to prove recovery of pistol
beyond reasonable doubt, no ground to disbelieve
testimony of injured witnesses. Therefore, though the prosecution failed to recover the other weapons, but the evidence and material as discussed above clearly established the case of
A1 and A2 in the commission of the above offence when evidence of main witnesses is corroborated and consistent with medical evidence. Another argument of the accused is that the entire evidence before the court is nothing but of interested witnesses and thus it cannot be relied upon. It is true that the main witnesses in this case are examined as P.Ws.1 to 9 and they are relatives of the deceased. Though they examined independent witnesses as P.Ws.10 and 11 who but though turned hostile but admitted as to occurrence of incident. Though the Pw1 to Pw9 are relatives of the deceased but their evidence is corroborated and consistent with each other and also with medical evidence as to role of the main accused i.e. A1 and A2 though they are silent as to role of other accused. It has been held by Honourable
Supreme Court in a case between Kalegura Padma Rao
and Ors Vs. The State of A.P., rep. by the Public
Prosecutor reported in AIR 2007 SC 1299 that the
relationship is not a factor to affect the credibility of a
witness and it is more often than not that a relation would
not conceal the actual culprit and make allegations
against an innocent person. In this case also, there has been admitted enmity in between both sides and both sides belonged to rival groups and hence there is no necessity for prosecution 44 witnesses to make false allegations against the accused by concealing actual culprits. Therefore, in the light of the above material on record and facts and circumstances, the prosecution could establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt only against 1st accused and 2nd accused but they failed to establish guilt of accused against remaining accused. The charges framed against the accused are under section 120-B r/w 149, 147 r/w 149, 148 r/w 149, 302, 307 r/w 149of IPC and Section 3 and 5 of
E.S. Act and Section 27 (1) of Arms Act. Though the accused 1 and 2 are dealt with all the above charges, but the prosecution could made out their case only under section 302 IPC and also under section 27 (1) of Arms Act for causing murder of the deceased by using knives and axes which are prohibited there under. But they could not made out case under other charges against them in view of discrepancies in that regard as to who actually hurled bombs as number of persons are alleged to have participated in this incident. It is also case of the prosecution that A3 herein brought A13 and got prepared 10 Bombs and they were used by the accused in this case. Even as seen from the case of the prosecution, there are different statements with regard to the particulars of the persons, who hurled Bombs. It has been changed from one witness to another witness and further, the above case is made out only against A1 and A2. Hence, in view of the above facts and circumstances, when it is not clear as to the details of persons hurling Bombs, it is not safe to convict them for the charges under Explosive Substances Act. In the light 45 of above discussion, the prosecution could establish guilt against the accused 1 and 2 only for charges under sections 302 IPC and
Sections 27 (1) of Arms Act.
21.In the result, the accused/A1 and A2 are found guilty for the offences under Section 302 of IPC and under Section 27 (1) of Arms Act and accordingly, they are convicted under Section 235 (2) Cr.P.C. for the said offences.
Further, the accused/A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offences under Sections 120-B r/w 149, 147 r/w 149, 148 r/w 149, 307 r/w 149 and under Sections 3 and 5 of E.S. Act. The accused/A3, A5 to A12 are found not guilty for the offences under
Sections 120-B r/w 149, 147 r/w 149, 148 r/w 149, 302, 307 r/w 149 and under Sections 3 and 5 of E.S. Act and under Section 27 (1) of Arms Act. Accordingly they are acquitted under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 25th day of JULY, 2019.
V ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,
FAC: VI ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC), GUNTUR.
When the accused/A1 and A2 are questioned regarding quantum of sentence for the offences under section 302 IPC and under Section 27 (1) of Arms Act, they submitted that they have not committed any offence and requested to take lenient view.
46
But, by taking into consideration of above facts and circumstances, the nature and gravity of the offences proved against them and by taking into consideration of the past criminal record, it is not a fit case to take any lenient view.
Therefore, the accused/A1 and A2 each are sentenced to undergo “Rigorous Imprisonment for life till they are alive”. Since fine is also required to be imposed, they are also sentenced to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- each (Rupees Two Thousand Each Only) IDSI for two months each for the offence under Section 302 of IPC. They further each sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for Three years and to pay fine of
Rs.2,000/- each (Rupees Two Thousand Each Only) IDSI for two
months each for the offence under Section 27 (1) of Arms Act. Both sentences shall run concurrently. M.Os.1 to 21, which are non- valuable case property are ordered to be destroyed after lapse of appeal time. M.Os.22 to 24, 26 and 27 i.e., Suzuki Red colour Bike bearing No.AP 7H 4882; Hero Honda Splendor Maroon Black, bearing regn. No.AP 07 AQ 5726; Four Nokia Cell phones; One
Sony Ericson mobile phone, two Nokia Cell phones and one
Spice Mobile phone; Hero Honda Splendor bearing No.AP 07 AJ 1107 are ordered to be confiscated to State after lapse of appeal time. M.O.25 i.e. Tata Indica Car bearing No.AP 09AR 7518 which was already given for interim custody vide orders in
Crl.M.P.No.318/2018 dated.21.10.2008, holds good.
The accused are informed about their right to prefer appeal to the Hon’ble High Court of of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi and 47 copy of the judgment is being supplied to them for the said purpose.
Typed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 25th day of
JULY, 2019.
V ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,
FAC: VI ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC), GUNTUR
Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined
For Prosecution: For defence:
PW1-P.Poorna Chandra Rao. D.W.1 – K.V.Rama Rao.
PW2-Karasani Padmavathi.
PW3-Kasikalla Siva Nagendram.
PW4-Pasupuleti Pratima.
PW5-Ranga Murai.
PW6-Suda Srinivasa Rao.
PW7-Kasikala Uma Maheswara Rao.
PW8-Chellamcherla Srinivasa Rao.
PW9-Karasani Venkata Narayana.
PW10-Kanaka Anki Reddy.
P.W.11-Golla Tirupal.
P.W.12-Bheemavarapu Vema Reddy.
P.W.13-Ankala Ravi.
P.W.14-Karasani Rama Rao.
P.W.15-Chadalavada Srinivasa Prabhu.
P.W.16-Battula Koteswara Rao.
P.W.17-Dr.J.Hima Kiran.
P.W.18-Dr.B.Lakshmi Narayana.
P.W.19-Y.Sridhar Reddy.
P.W.20-R.Vijaya Bhaskara Reddy.
48
Exhibits Marked For Prosecution: Ex.P1/: Report given by P.W.1 to police.
Ex.P2/: Photographs (23) along with negatives.
Ex.P3/: Scene observation report.
Ex.P4/: Inquest report.
Ex.P5/: Admissible portion of mediator report, dt.27.03.2008, at 12 noon.
Ex.P.6/: Admissible portion of mediator report, dt.27.03.2008, 10 P.M.,
Ex.P7/: Signature of PW15 on mediatornama, dt.18.04.2008, at 1-00 P.M.,
Ex.P8/ : Mediatornama, dt.18.04.2008 at about 5.30 P.M.,
Ex.P9/: Admitted signature of PW16 on mediatornama, dt.05.05.2008 at 1-00 P.M.,
Ex.P10/: Wound certificate issued by PW17.
Ex.P11/ : Post Mortem report.
Ex.P12/: Letter addressed to the Director, Central Forensic
Laboratory, Hyderabad.
Ex.P13/: First Information Report.
Ex.P14/: Rough sketch.
Ex.P15/: Letter of Advices (3) three in number sent to the
Magistrate.
Ex.P16/: Letter dated.21.06.2008. From IV Addl. Munsif
Magistrate, Guntur to Asst., Director, FSL, Hyderabad.
Ex.P17/: Opinion of F.S.L., dated.11.06.2008.
Ex.P18/: Report and opinion of F.S.L., dated.26.05.2008.
Ex.P19/: Memo.
Ex.P20/: Attested copy of prosecution orders issued by the
District Collector, Guntur, dated 10.07.2008 in
D.Dis.No.1251/08-C5.
For Defence:
Ex.D1/: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1 ( Contradiction).
49
Ex.D2/: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1 ( Contradiction).
Ex.D3/: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1 ( Contradiction).
Ex.D4/: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1 ( Contradiction).
Ex.D5/: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1 ( Contradiction).
Ex.D6/: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1 ( Contradiction).
Ex.D7/: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2 ( Contradiction).
Ex.D8/: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2 ( Contradiction).
Ex.D9/: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2 ( Contradiction).
Ex.D10/: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3 ( Contradiction).
Ex.D11/: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3 ( Contradiction).
Ex.D12/: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3 ( Contradiction).
Ex.D13/: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3 ( Contradiction).
Ex.D14/: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3 ( Contradiction).
Ex.D15/: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3 ( Contradiction).
Ex.D16/: Kept Blank ( Strike off as per docket order dated.26.03.2012)
Ex.D17/: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW4 ( Contradiction).
Ex.D18/: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW4 ( Contradiction).
Ex.D19/: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW4 ( Contradiction).
Ex.D20/: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW4 ( Contradiction).
Ex.D21/: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW6 ( Contradiction).
Ex.D22/: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW6 ( Contradiction).
Ex.D23/: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW7 ( Contradiction).
Ex.D24/: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW9 ( Contradiction).
Ex.D25/: Attested copy of Accident register of Pasupuleti Poorna
Chandra Rao.
Material Objects Marked
M.O.1: Hunting knife;
M.O.2: Bomb Remnants;
M.O.3: Gold colour Matrix Renaults, Gold Black colour pen (two pieces);
M.O.4: Dockers Black colour Hat;
M.O.5: Sony Ericson Cell phone cover; 50
M.O.6: White half boot;
M.O.7: Pair of Hawaye Slippers;
M.O.8: Sony Black colour pair of Cheppals;
M.O.9: Left Black pair of Cheppals;
M.O.10: Black Cheppals two in number;
M.O.11: Lancer Brown colour Cheppal one piece;
M.O.12: Right Cheppal with Sunny Black;
M.O.13: Synthetic Cheppal one piece;
M.O.14: Polo Brown colour Travel Bag;
M.O.15: Black colour Left Cheppal;
M.O.16: Coconut cutting axe;
M.O.17: Hunting sickle;
M.O.18: Broken spectacles;
M.O.19: Blood stained swab;
M.O.20: Controlled swab;
M.O.21: Cloth pieces and twine pieces;
M.O.22: Suzuki Red colour Bike bearing No.AP 7H 4882;
M.O.23: Hero Honda Splendor Maroon Black, bearing regn.
No.AP 07 AQ 5726;
M.O.24: Four Nokia Cell phones;
M.O.25: Tata Indica Car bearing No.AP 09AR 7518;
M.O.26: One Sony Ericson mobile phone, two Nokia Cell phones and one Spice Mobile phone;
M.O.27: Hero Honda Splendor bearing No.AP 07 AJ 1107;
V ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,
FAC: VI ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC), GUNTUR.