Fair 1 S.C.68 of 2019
IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,
KARIMNAGAR.
PRESENT: M.KRISHNA MURTHY,
III ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE,
KARIMNAGAR.
Wednesday, the 27th day of January, 2021
SESSIONS CASE NO.68 OF 2019
[On committal by the learned II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Huzurabad in P.R.C.No.15 of 2018 dated 13-02-2019}
Name of the complainant::The State through Circle Inspector of Police, Elkathurthy (Crime No.146 of 2017 of Kamalapur P.S.).
Description of the accused::A.1: Muduganti Sujatha, W/o Bojireddy, Aged: 34 years, Reddy, House-wife, R/o Ramnagar, Karimnagar. A.2: Mula Sudhakar Reddy, S/o Mukunda Reddy, Aged: 64 years, Reddy, Rtd. Employee, R/o Sapthagiri Colony, Karimnagar. A.3: Diddi Kondaiah @ Kondal, S/o Sailu, Aged: 40 years, Caste: Peruka, Occu: DCM Van driver, R/o H.No.9-81, Gandhinagar, Bhupalpally. A.4: Madikonda Praveen Kumar @ Laddu, S/o Sampath, Aged: 20 years, Caste: SC/Madiga,R/oH.No.16-48, Harijanawada, CSI Colony, Parkal village and Mandal, Warangal Rural District. A.5: Kanakala Raju @ Rajkumar, S/o Mogli, Aged: 24 years, SC/Mala, R/o H.No.3-77, Goalpur village, Chityal Mandal(Died). A.6: Mula Sulochana, W/o Sudhakar Reddy, Aged: 60 years, Reddy, R/o Saptagiri Colony, Karimnagar. Charges::Under Section 120-B, I.P.C against A.1 to A.6. Under Section 302, I.P.C read with Section 34, I.P.C against A.1 to A.5. Under Section 302, I.P.C read with Section 109, I.P.C against A.1, A.2 and A.6. Under Section 201, I.P.C against A.1 to A.6.
Fair 2 S.C.68 of 2019 Plea of the accused::Not guilty.
Finding of the Court::A.1 to A.4 found guilty.
Sentence or order A.1 to A.4 are found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, I.P.C., Section 302, I.P.C. read with Section 34, I.P.C and Section 201, I.P.C. and A.1 and A.2 are also found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302, I.P.C. read with Section 109, I.P.C. and under Section 235(2), Cr.P.C. they are convicted for the said offences.
A.6 is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, I.P.C., Section 302, I.P.C. read with Section 109, I.P.C. and Section 201, I.P.C and under Section 235(1), Cr.P.C she is acquitted of the said offences. A.6 shall be set at liberty and her bail bonds shall stand cancelled after six months.
A.1 to A.4 are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for LIFE and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand) each in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months each for the offence punishable under Section 120-B, I.P.C.
A.1 to A.4 are also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for LIFE and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand) each in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months each for the offence punishable under Section 302, I.P.C read with Section 34, I.P.C. A.1 to A.4 are also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand) each in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months each for the offence punishable under Section 201, I.P.C.
A.1 and A.2 are also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for LIFE and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand) each in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months each for the offence punishable under Section 302, I.P.C read with Section 109, I.P.C. All the
Fair 3 S.C.68 of 2019 substantive sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently. The total fine amount is Rs.14,000/- (Rupees fourteen thousand only).
M.Os.1 to 6, 9 and 15 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time or after disposal of appeal if any. M.Os.7, 8, 11, 14, 17 cell phones and M.O.18 digital watch shall be confiscated to the State, i.e., they should be sold in public auction and the proceeds shall be remitted to the State after expiry of appeal time or after disposal of appeal if any.
M.O.10 Van shall be returned to its original owner after due enquiry regarding ownership and identity after expiry of appeal time or after disposal of appeal if any. M.O.13 bike was already returned to one Masaboina Srinu towards interim custody as per the orders dated 14-11-2019 in Crl.M.P.No.55 of 2019 and the undertaking given by said Srinu shall be in force till expiry of appeal time or till disposal of appeal if any.
M.O.12 cash of Rs.18,000/- (Rupees eighteen thousand only) and M.O.16 cash of Rs.14,000/- (Rupees fourteen thousand only) shall be confiscated to the State after expiry of appeal time or after disposal of appeal if any.
rosecution conducted by:Sri K.Sanjeeva Reddy, Addl. Public Prosecutor.
Defence conducted by::Sri P.Sajan Kumar, Advocate.
This case is coming before me on 18-01-2021 for final hearing in the presence of Sri K.Sanjeeva Reddy, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri P.Sajan Kumar, Advocate for the accused, upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing the arguments and the matter having stood over for consideration to this day, the Court delivered the following:
Fair 4 S.C.68 of 2019
J U D G M E N T
1) This Sessions Case arose out of the charge sheet filed by the Circle Inspector of Police, Elkathurthy before the learned II
Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Huzurabad against the
accused Nos.1 to 6 in Crime No.146 of 2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 302 and 201, I.P.C read with
Sections 34 and 109, I.P.C of Kamalapur Police Station.
2.01)The prosecution case in brief as per the charge sheet is as follows:- The accused No.1 and the deceased Bojireddy are wife and husband. The said Bojireddy is son of P.W.1. The accused No.1 is daughter of accused Nos.2 and 6. The accused No.3 purchased DCM
Van (M.O.10) from one Sriramula Kumaraswamy through a finance company and was paying finance installments @ Rs.13,150/- per month regularly and he is eking out his livelihood with own driving by rent in Bhupalpally village. The accused No.4 is eking out his livelihood by doing cattle business and he used to engage the vehicles of A.3 and A.5 for rent for transporting the cattle to the market for sale. In that connection there was a good friendship in between A.3 to A.5.
2.02)The marriage between accused No.1 and the deceased was performed on 07-02-2007 and Rs.2,00,000/- net cash, seven tulas gold ornaments and house plot worth Rs.5,00,000/- were given to the deceased towards dowry and Rs.50,000/- was also given
Fair 5 S.C.68 of 2019 towards adabidda katnam by A.2 and A.6 at the time of marriage.
The accused No.1 worked as private Teacher and the deceased worked as T.P.M in Bayer Seeds Company. He was addicted to alcoholic drinks and smoking cigarettes. He used to torture A.1 mentally and physically and to go to job in drunken state and create nuisance by picking up quarrels with his co-employees. Due to the same he was transferred to various places, i.e., Hanamkonda,
Ramayampet, Bhupalpally and Chathisgadh.
2.03)The deceased quarrelled with Regional Production
Manager and beat him under drunken state when he was working at
Ramayampet. Due to the same the deceased was immediately transferred to Bhupalpally. At that place the deceased resided in a rented house at Hanuman Nagar, Bhupalpally along with his family.
He used to spend his entire salary for consuming liquor and for luxurious with friends. He did not provide any amount for family maintenance. Due to the same the accused No.1 worked as Biology
Teacher in Margadarshi School at Bhupalpally for about five years and she has maintained the entire family with her salary.
2.04)The deceased also used criminal force on accused No.1 to provide her salary for drinks, other-wise he was causing burns over her thighs with cigarette and torturing her. The deceased also tortured accused No.1 for selling the plot and gold. Several panchayaths were conducted in the presence of their parents and
Fair 6 S.C.68 of 2019 elders in that connection. The deceased admitted his guilt and promised to give up the habit of liquor and to look after the family well and taken back accused No.1 to Bhupalpally for conjugal life.
2.05)In the year 2015 two days prior to Sankranthi Festival in the mid-night the deceased went to the house in fully drunken condition, woke up A.1, abused her in filthy language and beat her.
Due to the said unbearable torture meted out by the deceased the accused No.1 along with her daughter Amrutha aged 9 years returned to Karimnagar on the next day and went to the house of A.2 and A.6 and gave a complaint to Police, Karimnagar II Town. The police personnel called the deceased and conducted family counselling. Then the deceased executed a bond stating that he would look after A.1 and children well by giving up the habit of liquor in future. Later the deceased along with A.1 went to Bhupalpally for conjugal life.
2.06)Two days thereafter the deceased again consumed huge liquor, went to school in which A.1 was working as Teacher and created nuisance there alleging that A.1 had extra marital relations with others. He also behaved in rude manner towards higher officer.
The said acts of the deceased went to the notice of higher authorities and they transferred the deceased to Chathisgadh State.
The deceased then alleged that he was transferred due to filing of complaint against him in the police station only and so saying he
Fair 7 S.C.68 of 2019 was torturning A.1. At last the accused No.1 narrated the above said facts to accused No.2 on phone due to said unbearable torture.
Then accused No.2 went to the house of deceased at Bhupalpally and convinced the deceased and A.1 and in view of the study of A.1 he advised them to shift their abode to Karimnagar. Then the deceased and A.1 agreed for the same.
2.07)Later the deceased engaged DCM Van bearing No.AP-28-
W-5465 of accused No.3 on rent of Rs.5,500/- and along with its driver, i.e., A.3 went to their house for shifting goods. Then while A.1 along with A.2 and A.3 were loading goods in the van the deceased duly consumed liquor and unnecessarily abused A.1 in most filthy language. Later when A.1 along with A.2 and her daughter sat in the cabin the deceased duly consumed liquor and sat with goods in the back body of the van. The accused No.3 who was driving the said van observed the behaviour of the deceased, enquired with A.1 and gave his mobile numbers, i.e., 9908675709 and 8099398660 with a promise that he would help her (A.1) whenever she requires any help from him.
2.08)The goods were downloaded in the rented house at
Ramnagar, Karimnagar. Then accused No.6 enquired about deceased as ‘’VADEDI MA ALLUDE KANIPISTHALEDU, IKKADA
SAMANLU EVADU SARDALI, VADU CHACHINA BAGUNDEDI,
THAGUBOTHODU, VADIVALLA MAKU MANASHANTHI LEKUNDA UNDI,
Fair 8 S.C.68 of 2019
DUTY SARIGA CHEYADU, ROJU THRAGI NA BIDDANU KODUTHADU,
INKA VANIKI MANASHANTHI KAVALATA etc.’’.
2.09)After completion of work the accused Nos.1 and 6 served food and gave Rs.5,500/- towards van rent to the accused No.3.
Since then now and then the accused No.1 used to chat over phone with accused No.3. Later the deceased along with A.1 went to
Rayapur, Chathishgadh where the deceased worked for about three months. But during that period he used to torture accused No.1 regularly. Due to which the accused No.1 used to inform the facts to accused No.2 over phone. Once the deceased consumed huge liquor. Due to the same the accused No.1 questioned him. On that the deceased beat accused No.1 severely and slept. Later the accused No.1 poured cotton seed pesticide in the ear of the deceased with an intention to kill him. But the deceased immediately woke up and rubbed away the poison liquid.
2.10)Due to continuous harassment of the deceased the accused No.1 again returned to Karimnagar and started residing in the above rented house. Later the deceased quarrelled with his higher officials and joined with accused No.1 in the above house at
Karimnagar. Since June the deceased without doing any work used to consume liquor and torture A.1 in the above manner by saying that he will dispose of her gold and plot and used force on her to take the share of her property and money from her parents and bring
Fair 9 S.C.68 of 2019 the same to him, pressed her neck and cut her pusthelathadu. Due to which the accused No.1 duly crying went to the house of accused
Nos.2 and 6 and narrated the above facts to them and said that ‘’NENU IKA BATHUKANU, NA BHARTHA PETTE BADHALU
BHARINCHALENU,NABHARTHACHETHULOYEPPUDO
CHANIPOTHANU etc.’’. Then accused Nos.2 and 6 consoled her by saying as ‘’NUVVU CHAVAKUDADU, VADE CHAVALI, NEE BHARTHA
UNDI YEMI CHESTHADU’’.
2.11)Later the accused No.2 gave some sleeping pills to the accused No.1 and asked her to serve the said pills to the deceased by mixing in the milk. The accused No.1 returned to house and served the above pills mixed with milk to the deceased. But the deceased expressed as bitter taste and did not consume the said milk. At last the accused No.1 took a decision to eliminate the deceased, discussed the same with accused No.2 and later they contacted accused No.3 over phone and asked him to come and meet them in a park at Hanamkonda. On that the accused No.3 agreed and met A.1, A.2 and A.6 in Public Garden, Hanamkonda on 01-09-2017. Then A.1, A.2 and A.6 narrated the entire tortures meted out to A.1 by the deceased and sought help of A.3 to kill the deceased and they stated that they would give to him what he wanted for the same.
Fair 10 S.C.68 of 2019 2.12)The accused No.3 expressed his inability to kill the deceased by himself alone and stated that he would discuss with his assistants, i.e., A.4 and A.5 and he would meet again after preparing murder plan and asked A.1 and A.2 to get ready with amount of
Rs.3,00,000/- towards expenditure to kill the deceased and went away. Later in the first week of September, 2017 the accused No.2 contacted accused No.3 over phone and A.3 called them to Parkal.
Then A.1 along with A.2 and A.6 visited Parkal where in the premises of Silparama Temple they met A.3 and agreed to give Rs.1,30,000/- for killing the deceased. Later they hatched a murder plan.
2.13)According to the same that in the month of September, 2017 A.3 approached A.4 and A.5 in Parkal and narrated the about harassment of the deceased towards A.1 and stated that if they kill the deceased they may get huge money from A.1 and A.2. The accused No.3 agreed to kill the deceased as he needed money. A.4 and A.5 agreed to assist A.3 to kill the deceased. As per their plan while A.1 had to bring the deceased to Medaram jathara on 16-09-2017 A.2 had to proceed alone to Bhupalpally in order to meet
A.3. As per their plan A.1 had asked the deceased to go to Medaram jathara. The deceased agreed and tried to ask their house owner
Jayanth to accompany them in the said programme but A.1 refused to bring their house owner to jathara. Due to the same the programme was cancelled on 16-09-2017.
Fair 11 S.C.68 of 2019 2.14)At last as per their plan A.1 along with the deceased left
Karimnagar on 18-09-2017 at about 0845 hours and proceeded to
Hanamkonda in order to go to Medaram jathara and informed the same to A.2 over phone. After one hour A.2 alone left from
Karimnagar and went to Huzurabad by bus. Later A.2 went to Parkal in a bus and got down in bus stand and went to Bhupalpally by bus at about 1500 hours. On the way A.2 chatted with A.3 two or three times over phone and he met A.3 to A.5 who are waiting outside bus stand for A.2. On the request of A.3 the accused No.2 gave
Rs.10,000/- for expenditure.
2.15)Later A.3 purchased four Royal Stag whisky full bottles, water bottles, glasses and stuff. Meanwhile A.1 contacted A.2 over phone and caused enquiry and after knowing about their location they have informed that they have taken a room in Medaram on rent and asked him. Later A.2 along with A.3 to A.5 left from Bhupalpally in the van of A.3 and reached Medaram at 1745 hours and parked the DCM van on the way to Jampanna vagu where while A.3 to A.5 were consuming liquor A.2 had also gave company to them. After some time A.2 informed to A.3 that A.1 along with deceased boarded in room No.3 and went to said room wherein A.1 was having food and deceased already completed half and was consuming remaining liquor from Royal Stag full bottle.
Fair 12 S.C.68 of 2019 2.16)Then with an intention to make the deceased believe A.2 informed that he came to know through A.1 about Medaram tour of
A.1 and the deceased and he also prayed for Sammakka Goddess for the happy of conjugal life of A.1 and the deceased and joined for liquor in the company of deceased. At that juncture A.2 served huge liquor to the deceased and after completion of liquor in the bottle he went to A.3 and collected a Royal Stag full bottle which was containing half liquor and while returning to room A.2 asked A.3 to get ready and he would return for their programme.
2.17)Later A.2 again served liquor to the deceased and asked him to take the liquor fast for going to house soon. On that the deceased who was under fully intoxicated state asked A.2 as there were no buses and autos. On that A.2 informed that he saw A.3 in jathara and as such they want to go in the van of A.3 and the deceased also agreed to return in the van. Later A.2 left from room to bring A.3 with van and went to A.3 who was already present in the van along with A.4 and A.5 at the gate.
2.18)Later A.2 had taken A.3 to A.5 to the above room. A.2 got up and shut the mouth of the deceased while A.4 beat on the neck of deceased with iron rod as a result the deceased went unconscious.
A.3 lifted the deceased and shifted into back body of the van. Later while A.4 and A.5 caught hold of the deceased in the back body of the van A.1 and A.2 boarded in the van cabin. At about 2300 hours
Fair 13 S.C.68 of 2019 A.3 started the van and left from Medaram and via Bhupalpally,
Parkal, Shanigaram route and stopped the vehicle on the bridge at the outskirts of Vangapalli village of Kamalapur Mandal.
2.19)Later A.3 to A.5 made the deceased to get down from the vehicle. Then A.4 beat on both the shoulders and back side of neck with iron rod and due to which the deceased fell down. Then A.3 forcibly kicked in the side ribs, stomach and chest of the deceased.
A.2 in angry mood sat on the body of the deceased and fisted over chest. A.1 had also indiscriminately kicked the deceased, torn his shirt and thrown away. A.4 pressed the neck and mouth of the deceased. At last A.3 checked the breathing by placing his hand at the nose and after confirming the death of the deceased and while they were boarding the van chappal of A.2 was broken. Due to the same A.2 thrown away his chappal on the scene.
2.20)A.5 checked the time with his digital watch and informed that then time was 0220 hours and hurried them to escape from there. Then immediately all of them left from there in the van and reached Huzurabad via Jammikunta where A.3 parked his van near patrol bunk and while A.4 and A.5 were sleeping in the back body of the said van A.2 along with A.1 and A.3 boarded the bus in
Huzurabad bus stand and proceeded towards Karimnagar in bus. On the way A.2 switched on his mobile phone and checked the time at
Keshavapatnam and then time was 0400 hours. The accused No.2
Fair 14 S.C.68 of 2019 contacted A.6 over phone and narrated the brief facts to her and informed about their travel from Huzurabad to Karimnagar in the bus.
2.21)Later they got down from the bus at Karimnagar bus stand where A.2 left A.1 and A.3 and went to his house at Sapthagiri
Colony by engaging an Auto Rickshaw for Rs.150/- and collected
Rs.1,30,000/- from A.6 and again returned to the bus stand and gave the said amount to A.3. Later A.1 along with A.2 went to the house of A.2 where after taking rest for some time A.1 returned to her house in the early morning of 19-09-2017. After taking money of
Rs.1,30,000/- from accused No.1 the accused No.3 left Karimnagar and returned to Huzurabad by bus and went to his van in which A.4 and A.5 were found sleeping.
2.22)Later A.3 to A.5 went to Parkal via Hanamkonda and made
A.4 and A.5 got down from the van at bus stand, Parkal and A.3 gave
Rs.65,000/- to A.4 and returned to his house and while cleaning the van he took a black and red mixed single chappal and thrown it in drainage canal. One week after commission of offence A.3 contacted
A.2 and asked about remaining amount. A.2 promised to give the remaining amount soon. Later due to serious efforts made by the
Police A.1 and A.2 approached P.W.4 and narrated the above facts to him. P.W.4 got A.1 and A.2 surrendered to Police and to make extra judicial confession.
Fair 15 S.C.68 of 2019 2.23)On 19-09-2017 at about 0800 hours the accused No.1 concocted a false story and contacted L.W.5 Mittai @ Dandu Srinivas through her mobile phone 9951946916 to his mobile phone
No.9440076783 and informed that on the previous day she along with deceased went to Laknavaram and again they returned to
Hanamkonda bus stand at about 1830 hours where the deceased informed that his two friends came to him and he had some work with them and got her boarded the bus forcibly and sent her alone to
Karimnagar and later few minutes back when she tried to contact her husband to his mobile phone No.9000010475 and it was found switched off and as such she asked L.W.5 Mittai @ Dandu Srinivas to cause enquiry.
2.24)Meanwhile P.W.2 who first noticed the dead body informed the same to L.W.5 Srinivas who immediately rushed there, identified the deceased and informed about the same to A.1 over phone at about 0930 hours and informed that the deceased was found dead on Vangapalli bridge of Kamalapur Mandal. Then A.2 along with A.1 and P.W.1 went and informed about the same in Kamalapur Police
Station and duly suspecting over death of the deceased the accused
No.1 lodged a complaint at the police station for taking necessary action. In that connection a case was registered in Crime
No.146/2017 under Section 174, Cr.P.C (suspicious death).
Fair 16 S.C.68 of 2019 2.25)During investigation the statement of P.W.1 was recorded.
Scene of offence on the bridge at the outskirts of Vangapalli village was observed and rough sketch was prepared in the presence of mediators, i.e., P.W.7 and L.W.10 Polam Sadanandam. Chappals and a shirt were seized as per Crime Details Form (for short C.D.F) No.1
before the said mediators. Photographs of the dead body covering
the scene were got taken with Ipad/tab camera. The dead body was shifted to mortuary of M.G.M Hospital, Warangal in the presence of mediators, i.e., P.W.8 and L.W.12 Dulam Pruthvi Shankar.
2.26)P.W.12 then Sub Inspector of Police, Kamalapur conducted inquest panchanama over the body of the deceased in the presence of mediators, i.e., P.W.8 and L.W.12 Dulam Pruthvi Shankar. The photographs of the dead body were also got taken with the help of
P.W.3, private photographer. He also recorded the statements of
P.Ws.1 to 3, A.1 and A.2 who were list witnesses 1 and 3 earlier.
2.27)P.W.13 the doctor, i.e., Assistant Professor, Forensic
Department, Kakatiya Medical College, Warangal conducted autopsy over the body of the deceased and preserved viscera and reserved his opinion. The dead body was handed over to the relations under acknowledgment. P.W.12 collected post mortem examination (for short P.M.E) report from the said doctor who gave the opinion that the deceased died due to smothering associated with multiple injuries. The viscera was preserved for chemical analysis to rule out
Fair 17 S.C.68 of 2019 poison or intoxicants if any. The viscera was sent to Regional
Forensic Science Laboratory (for short R.F.S.L), Warangal for analysis and report.
2.28)On 27-12-2017 at 0800 hours P.W.4 produced A.1 and A.2 who were earlier list witnesses 1 and 3 before P.W.12 in Kamalapur police station and P.W.4 informed that they are wife and father-in-law of the deceased and they killed the deceased along with three others. A.1 and A.2 also admitted about their guilt, i.e., commission of murder of the deceased along with three others. Then P.W.12 took
A.1 and A.2 into custody, examined and recorded the statement of
P.W.4 about his extra judicial confession and informed to the Circle
Inspector of Police and other superior officers.
2.29)Basing on the statement of P.W.4 regarding extra judicial confession of A.1 and A.2 and admissions of A.1 and A.2 P.W.12 altered the section of law from Section 174, Cr.P.C, i.e., suspicious death to Section 302, I.P.C read with Section 34, I.P.C and issued express memos to the Court and others concerned. A requisition was given to Executive Magistrate, Kamalapur to provide two Village
Revenue Officers to act as mediators for confession panchanama of
A.1 and A.2 and another requisition was given for sending the original F.I.R., inquest and other connected documents to the Judicial
Magistrate of First Class (for short J.M.F.C), Huzurabad in view of the
above alteration.
Fair 18 S.C.68 of 2019 2.30) P.W.14 took up further investigation on receipt of express memo. He perused the case diary file, verified the investigation done by P.W.12 and found it on correct lines. He secured the presence of mediators, i.e., P.W.9 and L.W.14 Bairimalla Srinivas and interrogated A.1 and A.2 thoroughly and systematically. Both of them admitted to have committed the offences along with A.3 to A.6.
So confessing A.2 produced mobile phone which he used regularly, i.e., Itel company with idea SIM No.9505831106 which he used to talk to the mobile numbers 9908675709 and 8099398600 belongs to
A.3. P.W.14 reduced the confession of A.2 into writing and seized the above mobile phone and Sim Card No.9505831106 from the possession and at the instance of A.2 under cover of confession and recovery panchanama before the said two mediators.
2.31)The accused No.1 also stated that since 15-09-2017 herself and A.2 exchanged their mobile SIM numbers 9505831106 and 9951946916 into their phones and another SIM number 9866711909 belonging to the deceased was used by A.6 with an intention to avoid doubt by Police towards them. After work out of their plan they damaged SIM No.9866711909 and thrown away and also damaged the mobile phone which was previously used by A.2.
So confessing A.1 produced her mobile phone used by her regularly, i.e., Intex company mobile phone with Idea SIM No.9951946916 with which she used to talk with mobile numbers 9908675709 and
Fair 19 S.C.68 of 2019 8099398600 belonging to A.3. P.W.14 reduced the confession of A.1 into writing and seized the above mobile phone and SIM
No.9951946916 from her possession and at her instance under cover of confession and recovery panchanama before the said mediators.
2.32)Later P.W.14 effected the arrest of A.1 and A.2 and in pursuance of their confession P.W.14 along with same mediators visited the scene of offence at the outskirts of Vangapalli village where he secured the presence of L.W.5 Mittai @ Dandu Srinivas, examined him and recorded his statement. Later P.W.14 proceeded to Medaram jathara place, prepared rough sketch and noted the particulars of scene in C.D.F No.2 at the accommodation rooms
before P.W.10 and L.W.16 Pathi Srinivas Reddy, summoned P.W.5 and
examined and recorded his statement.
2.33)P.W.14 gave a requisition to the Temple Authorities of
Medaram to verify the records and supply a copy of record pertaining to room booking by the deceased on 18-09-2017. Later he collected room booking receipt from P.W.5. P.W.14 re-examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and re-recorded their statements. Later he produced A.1 and A.2
before the Court for remand.
2.34)P.W.14 while doing patrolling duty apprehended A.3 to A.5 while escaping in crime vehicle, i.e., DCM Van bearing No.AP-28-W- 5465 at Sairam Modern Rice Mill, R & B Mulkanur road, Elkathurthy
Fair 20 S.C.68 of 2019 on 29-12-2017 at 1700 hours. When they were about to confess the offence P.W.14 secured the presence of P.W.11 and L.W.17 Gudepu
Ramesh and in their presence interrogated A.3 to A.5 and they admitted about commission of offences along with A.1, A.2 and A.6.
2.35)So confessing A.3 produced the above said DCM Van,
Maxking company mobile phone with SIM Noo.9908675709 of Airtel company and net cash of Rs.18,000/- before the Police and the said mediators and also confessed that another SIM No.8099398600 was thrown away. P.W.14 reduced the confession of A.3 into writing and seized the above van, mobile phone and net cash from the possession and at the instance of A.3 under confession and recovery panchanama before the said mediators.
2.36)The accused No.4 also confessed about commission of offences and produced iron rod (jockey rod), Nokia mobile phone with SIM No.91000226101 of Airtel company, Hero Glamur motor cycle bearing No.TS-24-0230 and net cash of Rs.14,000/- before the
Police and said mediators. P.W.14 reduced the confession of A.4 into writing and seized the above mobile phone, iron rod and motor cycle from the possession and at the instance of A.4 under cover of confession and recovery panchanama.
2.37)Later A.5 corroborated the same version of confession of
A.4 and further confessed that on 29-12-2017 morning he went to a
Fair 21 S.C.68 of 2019 hotel where he read over the news published in the daily newspaper that A.1 and A.2 surrendered before the Police and confessed about offences giving their names for murder of deceased. The accused
No.5 got fear and immediately approached A.4 and thereafter A.4 and A.5 contacted A.3 and when they were escaping the Police apprehended them on the way. So confessing A.5 produced
Micromax mobile phone with SIM No.8978695032 of Airtel company,
Sport K58 digital wrist watch before the Police and the said mediators.
2.38)P.W.14 reduced the confession of A.5 into writing and seized the above mobile phone and wrist watch from the possession and at the instance of A.5 under cover of confession and recovery panchanama. Later A.3 to A.5 and seized property were taken to
Police Station, Kamalapur and they were arrested and sent to Court for remand.
2.39)On the requisition of P.W.14 the Principal Junior Civil
Judge, Husnabad (P.W.16) summoned P.Ws.1 and 4 and L.W.5 Mittai
@ Dandu Srinivas, examined and recorded their statements under
Section 164, Cr.P.C. Later P.W.14 gave a requisition to P.W.16 to conduct test identification parade (for short T.I.P) in respect of A.1 and A.2 by P.W.5. P.W.16 conducted T.I.P on 03-02-2018 and P.W.5 identified A.1 and A.2.
Fair 22 S.C.68 of 2019 2.40)On 18-06-2018 on reliable information about presence of
A.6 in the house P.W.15 along with Women P.C.No.2602 rushed to
Karimnagar and apprehended A.6 in her house at Sapthagiri Colony,
Karimnagar at 1430 hours and interrogated her. She voluntarily cofessed to have committed the offence along with A.1 to A.5.
P.W.15 brought A.6 to police station, effected her arrest at 1610 hours and sent her to Court for remand. P.W.15 examined P.W.6 and
L.W.8 Baddam Manga and recorded their statements in detail. The investigation established that A.1 to A.6 committed the offences in the above manner. Hence, the charge.
3.01) The learned II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Huzurabad took cognizance for the offences punishable under
Sections 120-B, 302, 201 and 109, I.P.C read with Section 34, I.P.C against the accused Nos.1 to 6, furnished copies of relevant documents to the accused under Section 207, Cr.P.C and committed the case to the Hon’ble Prl. Court of Session, Sessions Division,
Karimnagar under Section 209(a), Cr.P.C as the offence punishable under Section 302, I.P.C is exclusively triable by a Court of Session.
4)The Hon’ble Principal Sessions Judge, Karimnagar registered the case and made over the same to this Court for disposal according to law.
Fair 23 S.C.68 of 2019
5)After appearance of the accused and after hearing both sides this Court framed charge for the offence punishable under
Section 120-B, I.P.C against A.1 to A.6, for the offence punishable under Section 302, I.P.C read with Section 34, I.P.C against A.1 to A.5, for the offence punishable under Section 302, I.P.C read with Section 109, I.P.C against A.1, A.2 and A.6 and for the offence punishable under Section 201, I.P.C against A.1 to A.6, read over and explained to them in Telugu. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6)P.Ws.1 to 17 were got examined and Exs.P.1 to P.43 and
M.Os.1 to 18 were got exhibited on behalf of the prosecution.
7.01)After closure of prosecution side evidence the accused
Nos.1 to 6 were examined under Section 313, Cr.P.C. They denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution side evidence.
7.02)A.1, A.2 and A.6 stated that P.Ws.1 and 4 are cousins to each other, that after the death of husband of A.1 on 12th day there was discussion regarding property, that their relations asked to give mango garden, lands and part of plot to A.1 as she was having little aged daughter through the deceased Bojireddy and that keeping the same in mind this false case was filed. All the accused reported that there are witnesses in defence. Later it was reported on behalf of the accused that there was no defence evidnce.
Fair 24 S.C.68 of 2019 8.01)After hearing both sides on 02-03-2020 the case was posted to 11-03-2020 for judgment. On 04-03-2020 the prosecution filed Crl.M.Ps.34 and 35 of 2020 to reopen the prosecution side evidence and to recall P.W.12 to exhibit First Information Report (for short F.I.R) under Section 174, Cr.P.C. and they were allowed. Later
A.5 died and the case against him abated. P.W.12 was further examined in chief and cross and Ex.P.43 was marked. A.1 to A.4 and
A.6 were further examined under Section 313, Cr.P.C. They admitted
Ex.P.43 as the F.I.R. issued by P.W.12 on the basis of complaint of A.1.
They reported no witnesses in defence.
9.01) Heard both sides and perused the record.
9.02)The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor while referring to prosecution case and evidence on record mainly contended as follows:- The prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt from the evidence on record. The extra judicial confession made by
A.1 and A.2 to P.W.4 is admissible in evidence. The evidence of P.W.4 can be relied upon. On the information given by A.1 M.O.8 phone was recovered and on the information given by A.2 M.O.7 phone and
M.O.9 SIM card were recovered in the presence of P.W.9 and another as per Exs.P.11 and P.12, the relevant portions of panchanamas.
P.W.9 supported the prosecution case.
Fair 25 S.C.68 of 2019
The evidence of P.W.5 and Exs.P.5 to P.7 proved that the deceased Bhojireddy stayed in Medaram Temple room. P.W.10 deposed about Exs.P.13 and P.14 regarding A.1 and her husband visiting the said place, i.e., Medaram Temple. From the evidence of
P.Ws.11 and 14 the prosecution proved recovery of M.Os.10 to 12 from A.3, M.Os.13 to 16 from A.4 and M.Os.17 and 18 from A.5 under panchanamas, the relevant portions of which are Exs.P.15 to P.17 respectively.
The evidence of P.W.16 and Ex.P.37 proved that P.W.5 identified A.1 as the suspect. The prosecution also produced the relevant call data particulars pertaining to phones seized from the accused. The prosecution from the evidence on record proved the conspiracy of A.1 to A.4 and A.6. The prosecution also proved the offence punishable under Section 302, I.P.C read with Section 34,
I.P.C against A.1 to A.5, the offence punishable under Section 302,
I.P.C. read with Section 109, I.P.C. against A.1, A.2 and A.6 and the offence punishable under Section 201, I.P.C. against A.1 to A.4 and
A.6. Therefore, the accused may be punished under law accordingly.
9.03)On the other hand the learned defence counsel while referring to prosecution case and evidence on record mainly contended as follows:- There was no any suspicion against the accused in the beginning as per statement given by P.W.1 to Police.
Fair 26 S.C.68 of 2019 The alleged extra judicial confession before P.W.4 by A.1 and A.2 cannot be relied upon as the prosecution did not give any reason as to why A.1 and A.2 should approach P.W.4 after three months after the Police almost closed the case. The alleged extra judicial confession was made on 26-12-2017 at 7.00 p.m. before P.W.4. He handed over them, i.e., A.1 and A.2 to Police on 27-12-2017 in between 10.00 a.m. and 11.00 a.m. According to P.W.14 that P.W.12 informed to him at 8.00 a.m. on 27-12-2017 about P.W.4 producing
A.1 and A.2. According to P.W.12 that P.W.4 came at 8.00 a.m. on 27-12-2017. Ex.P.42 was not spoken to by P.W.4. Hence, the evidence of P.W.4 is not reliable and Ex.P.42 is created one.
P.W.5 is an Attender and he cannot issue any receipt for payment of room rent. The clerk concerned is not examined. The independent witnesses L.W.5 Mittal @ Dandu Srinivas and L.W.8
Baddam Manga were not examined deliberately. The witnesses examined are almost relations of P.W.1. The alleged incident was on 18-09-2017 and the alleged recovery was on 27-12-2017. Hence, it cannot be said that same amount was kept by A.3 and A.4 for three months as alleged by the prosecution. No document is filed to show that A.2 withdrew the said amounts. The particulars of notes were not mentioned.
There is no any evidence to show that amount was given to A.3 and A.4 by A.2 and there is no any evidence to show that the
Fair 27 S.C.68 of 2019 same amount was recovered from A.3 and A.4 and produced. The inhabitants of the locality where the alleged seizure of cash took place were not examined and only the presence of V.R.Os was secured.
As per column Nos.7 and 9 of Ex.P.10 inquest report there were no injuries on the dead body. As per Ex.P.21 P.M.E. Report and final opinion Ex.P.22 the cause of death was shown as ‘’smothering associated with multiple injuries’’. Therefore, the medical report is not definite as to whether the death was due to injuries or smothering. The cause of death must be either smothering or injuries and it cannot be smothering associated with injuries.
In the charge sheet it is not mentioned about P.W.12 visiting the place before receiving complaint. Exs.P.25 to P.33 cannot be relied upon as concerned employees are not examined. There is contradiction between medical evidence and oral evidence. Till 27-12-2017 P.W.1 did not give any complaint to Police. P.Ws.4, 9 and 10 are chance witnesses and the prosecution evidence cannot be accepted. The prosecution did not prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, the accused may be acquitted.
10) The point for determination is whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of A.1 to A.4 and A.6 for the offence punishable under Section 120-B, I.P.C., guilt of A.1 to A.4
Fair 28 S.C.68 of 2019 for the offence punishable under Section 302, I.P.C. read with Section 34, I.P.C., guilt of A.1, A.2 and A.6 for the offence punishable under
Section 302, I.P.C. read with Section 109, I.P.C and guilt of A.1 to A.4 and A.6 for the offence punishable under Section 201, I.P.C.
11) P O I N T:
The evidence of P.Ws.1, 4, 6, 8 and 10 shows that A.1 is wife of deceased Bhojireddy and daughter of A.2 and A.6. The evidence of P.W.1 shows that the marriage between A.1 and said
Bhojireddy took place about 10 to 15 years back. The evidence of
P.W.6 shows that the deceased is son-in-law to him by courtesy and he knows A.1, A.2 and A.6. The evidence of P.W.4 shows that P.W.1 is younger brother to him by courtesy. The fact that P.Ws.1 and 4 are cousins is also clearly stated by A-1, A-2 and A-6 during their examination under Section 313, Cr.P.C.
12)The evidence of P.W.8 shows that the deceased
Bhojireddy was his classmate upto 10th class, that he was on visiting terms with the deceased regularly and that till about 5 or 6 days prior to his death he visited his house and he was talking to him. The evidence of P.W.1 shows that the deceased was working in Bayer company of paddy seeds, that he worked at Chathisgadh for three months and that later he returned to Karimnagar for the purpose of education of study of his daughter by name Amrutha who was aged 11 years at the time of evidence of P.W.1.
Fair 29 S.C.68 of 2019
13)The evidence of P.W.1 shows that on 18-09-2017 at 8.30 a.m. his son and A-1 went to see Laknavaram lake for picnic purpose and that A-1 alone returned in the evening. P.W.1 further deposed that on his enquiry A-1 stated that his son was there itself at
Hanamkonda as he met his friends at bus stand at 6.30 p.m. and hence, she alone returned.
14)P.W.5 is an Attender in Endowment Department and he deposed that on 18-09-2017 in the afternoon one devotee by name
Bhojireddy came and enquired whether rooms were available in the temple, that he booked one room and went away, that he allotted
Room No.3, that he issued receipt to him and he paid Rs.200/- as room rent, that Ex.P.5 is the letter addressed to Circle Inspector of
Police, Elkathurthy, that Ex.P.6 is attested copy of receipt issued by him in favour of said Bhojireddy and that Ex.P.7 is attested copy of extract of daily collection record (for short D.C.R) maintained by
Assistant Commissioner of Endowment.
15)Ex.P.6 contains signature of M.Bhojireddy. Ex.P.7 contains particulars of amounts collected under various heads including room rents. Ex.P.7 is filed to show that Rs.200/- was collected towards room rent as per receipt bearing No.1886.
Fair 30 S.C.68 of 2019
16)The evidence of P.W.1 shows that he phoned to his son but it was switched off, that on the next day at 9.30 a.m. one
Vijayender who was a contractor informed to him on phone that his son lying on Vangapally bridge, that then himself, A.2, one Ramu,
P.W.6 and L.W.8 Manga went to M.G.M Hospital to see his son as
Police already shifted him to that Hospital and found his son dead.
P.W.6 deposed that on 19-09-2017 at 10.00 a.m. P.W.1 phoned to him and informed that the body of Bhojirddy was lying at Vangapally and on his enquiry P.W.1 stated that Bhojireddy and A-1 went to Medaram or so.
17)P.W.6 further deposed that then he went to Kamalapur
Police Station, that by that time the body of Bhojireddy was shifted to Hanamkonda and that P.W.1 informed to him that Bhojireddy got
A-1 boarded bus at Hanamkonda and went away with two other persons whom he does not know.
18)The evidence of P.W.2 shows that on 19-09-2017 at about 6.00 a.m. he was going to his agricultural land situated at
Vangapally, that he found the dead body of a male person on
Vangapally bridge, that he phoned to their sarpanch by name Panjala
Saraiah and informed to him about the same and that the said sarpanch Saraiah informed to Police on phone about the same.
Fair 31 S.C.68 of 2019
19)P.W.12, the Sub Inspector of Police, Kamalapur at the relevant point of time deposed that on 19-09-2017 at 1400 hours he received Ex.P.19 complaint from A-1 and he issued Ex.P.43 F.I.R.
under Section 174, Cr.P.C. on the basis of said complaint. Therefore, from Ex.P.19 and from the evidence of P.W.12 and P.W.1 it is clear that on 18-09-2017 at about 8.30 a.m. A-1 and her husband, i.e., deceased started at Karimnagar and went to Laknavaram for seeing it, i.e., site seeing. Ex.P.19 further reveals that at about 6.30 p.m.
the deceased met his two friends and that then the deceased went with his friends sending A-1 to Karimnagar.
20) Ex.P.19 further shows that on 19-09-2017 at about 8.00 a.m. A-1 phoned to the deceased and his phone came switched off, that she phoned to one Mitai Srinivas, the relation of Bhojireddy and informed to him about the same, that the said Srinivas phoned to A-1 at about 9.30 a.m. and informed that her husband was lying dead on
Vangapally bridge in the outskirts and that therefore, she gave report to Police raising suspicion over the death of her husband.
21)P.W.12 further deposed that he examined A-1, A-2 and
P.Ws.1 to 3 and recorded their statements under Section 161(3),
Cr.P.C. P.W.12 next deposed that he visited the scene of offence situated on the bridge in the outskirts of Vangapally village and observed the same and the body of the deceased in the presence of
P.W.7 and L.W.10 Sadanandam and prepared Ex.P.9 crime details
Fair 32 S.C.68 of 2019 form with map and recovered M.Os.1 to 6 (purse, photostat copy of driving licence, visiting card, single chappal, pair of chappals and shirt), that he also took photos of the body of the deceased with the help of his tab and that later he shifted the dead body to M.G.M
Hospital for inquest.
22)P.W.7 is private driver and resident of Vangapally and he supported the prosecution case about observation of scene of offence and dead body by Police and about seizure of M.Os.1 to 6 under Ex.P.9 and that he signed it after contents of the same were read over and explained to him. His evidence also shows that L.W.10
Poloju Sadanandam was also present at that time and he also signed
Ex.P.9.
23)P.W.12 further deposed that he got taken photos of the body of the deceased as per Exs.P-1 to P-3 with the assistance of
P.W.3. P.W.3 also deposed about the same. He further deposed that
Ex.P.4 is the compact disc pertaining to the said photos. He next deposed that Ex.P.39 and P.40 are photos of the body of the deceased taken by him from his tab and Ex.P.41 is relevant compact disc. P.W.12 next deposed that in the presence of P.W.8 and L.W.12
Pruthvi Shankar he held inquest over the body of the deceased as per Ex.P.10 panchanama. P.W.8 deposed that on 19-09-2017 at 10.00 a.m. he received phone call that Bhojireddy died, that then he went to M.G.M. Hospital to see his dead body, that L.W.12 Pruthvi
Fair 33 S.C.68 of 2019 Shankar and relations of Bhojireddy were present, that the Police came and conducted inquest over the body of said Bhoji Reddy and prepared Ex.P.10 panchanama and that himself and L.W.12 Pruthvi
Shankar signed Ex.P-10 after its contents were read over and explained to them.
24)P.W.12 further deposed that he sent the dead body for
P.M.E., that thereafter he handed over the dead body to the blood relations of the deceased, that the doctor conducted P.M.E. over the body of the deceased, that he preserved viscera from the dead body, that he sent viscera collected from the body of the deceased by the doctor to Regional Forensic Science Lab (for short RFSL), Warangal through Assistant Commissioner of Police (for short A.C.P.), Khazipet for analysis and report, that he received Ex.P.20 report from R.F.S.L.
through A.C.P., Khazipet to the effect that there was no poisonous substance in the items sent for analysis and that he collected P.M.E.
report and final opinion from P.W.13, the doctor.
25)P.W.13, the doctor deposed that he conducted P.M.E. over the body of the deceased and issued certificate Ex.P.21. His evidence also shows that he following the injuries on the body of the deceased, i.e., (1) abrasion measuring 2 cms x 1 cm on right shoulder; (2) abrasion measuring 3 cms x 2 cms present on the inter scapular region; (3) abrasion measuring 3 cms x 1 cm present on left shoulder; (4) abrasion measuring 3 cms x 2 cms present on the
Fair 34 S.C.68 of 2019 right cheek; (5) scalp contusion of 4 cms x 1 cm present on the occipital region; (6) multiple rib fractures present on both sides of the chest, haemothorax present and (7) mucosal surfaces of the both upper and lower lips are abraded and erosed and congested, that all the above injuries were fresh, reddish in colour and were of the age of about 26 to 36 hours prior to his examination and that he mentioned about the said injuries in column No.11 of Ex.P-21.
26)The evidence of P.W.13 also shows that he collected stomach contents and sent them to Forensic Science Lab (for short
FSL) for analysis and report. P.W.17, Asst. Director, R.F.S.L. deposed that on 12-10-2017 he received requisition from A.C.P., Khazipet
dated 07-10-2017 to analyze viscera sample of one M.Bhojireddy,
i.e., deceased in four items, that accordingly himself, Y.Neeraja,
Scientific Officer, A.Ramu, Scientific Assistant and Technicians analyzed them and found no poisonous substance in them, that the said Y.Neeraja, Scientific Officer issued report Ex.P-20 accordingly and that he approved and forwarded it.
27)P.W.13 further deposed that after getting Ex.P.20 F.S.L.
report he gave final opinion Ex.P-22 that the cause of death was due to smothering associated with multiple injuries and that the approximate time of death was about 30 hours to 36 hours prior to
P.M.E. P.W.12 also deposed about receiving Ex.P.21 P.M.E. with the said opinion.
Fair 35 S.C.68 of 2019
28)P.W.2 deposed about police seizing one purse which was lying by the side of dead body and that his villagers also came at that time. As P.W.2 did not support the prosecution case about police checking pant packet of the deceased and finding identity card of the deceased showing his identity as employee in Bayer
Seeds Company and about police sending the dead body to M.G.M.
Hospital, Warangal, he was cross examined by the learned Addl.
Public Prosecutor with permission of the court after treating him hostile.
29)P.W.2 admitted in such cross-examination that he stated to Sub Inspector of Police, Kamalapur under Section 161(3), Cr.P.C on 19-09-2017 that the Police checked the pant pocket of the deceased and found one identity card and came to know through said identity card that the deceased was one M.Bhojireddy and he was working in
Bayer seeds company and that his dead body was sent to M.G.M.
Hospital, Warangal. P.W.2 also admitted in the cross-examination for prosecution that he stated the same facts to Circle Inspector of
Police, Elkathurthy on 27-12-2017. P.W.2 also admitted to have stated to Circle Inspector of Police that one chappal of the deceased was lying by that side and that one shirt and one pair of chappal were lying under bridge.
Fair 36 S.C.68 of 2019
30)Therefore, the evidence now discussed clearly shows that
A-1 and her husband, i.e., deceased went to Laknavaram on 18.09.2017 for picnic purpose. The oral and documentary evidence now discussed above clearly shows that the deceased Bhojireddy died unnaturally, i.e., his death was homicidal death. Ex.P.21 P.M.E.
report shows that the P.M.E. commenced at 11.10 a.m. on 20-09- 2017 and concluded at 12.30 p.m. It further shows that the approximate time of death was about 30 to 36 hours prior to said
P.M.E., i.e., it was in between about 11.10 p.m. on 18-09-2017 and 11.10 a.m. on 20-09-2017.
31)Therefore, the court holds that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased Bhojireddy met with homicidal death in between the said timings as stated above. Now it has to be seen whether A.1 to A.4 and A.6 along with A.5 (since died) conspired together for killing the deceased and whether A.1 to A.4 along with A.5 (since died) killed him with common intention and whether A.1, A.2 and A.6 abetted such killing and whether A.1 to A.4 and A.6 along with A.5 (since died) screened the evidence pertaining to the said offences.
32)The evidence of P.W.1 further shows that his son
Bhojireddy used to take liquor now and then, that himself, P.W.6 and
L.W.8 Manga advised him not to take liquor, that the said Bhojireddy
Fair 37 S.C.68 of 2019 stopped taking liquor for some time and that he started it again. The evidence of P.W.10 also shows that the deceased was taking liquor.
33)P.W.1 further deposed that there used to be quarrels between his son and A-1 and that himself and others advised them not to quarrel and to live properly. P.W.6 deposed that about 10 days prior to the death of deceased Bhojireddy P.W.1 called him on phone and asked to come to the house of Bhojireddy and A-1 stating that there were disputes between them and they had to be resolved, that himself, L.W.8 Manga and L.W.5 Srinivas went to the house of
Bhojireddy and advised said Bhojireddy not to take liquor and to attend to duties properly and live happily with A-1, that Bhojireddy accepted for the same and promised to live properly and that he came to know that from two days thereafter the said Bhojireddy again started quarrelling with A-1.
34)P.W.8 deposed that he came to know that there were disputes between deceased and his wife and that about 5 or 6 days prior to the death of Bhojireddy the said Bhojireddy and A-1 quarrelled before him in their house. The evidence of P.W.10 also shows that there were family disturbances between A-1 and her husband.
35)P.W.4 who is an important witness in this case and on whose evidence the prosecution is very much relying on to prove its
Fair 38 S.C.68 of 2019 case which is mainly based on circumstantial evidence and extra judicial confession said to have been made to P.W.4 by A-1 and A-2, deposed that on 26-12-2017 at 7.00 p.m. A-1 and A-2 came to his house in a fearful condition and they stated that they killed
Bhojireddy as he used to take liquor and subject A-1 to cruelty by beating and by harassing her physically and mentally and as he used to threaten them by stating that he would sell the plot and he would resign to the job.
36)P.W.4 next deposed by volunteering that the Police also gave counselling to him (deceased) and that he also conducted panchayaths but there was no change in him. He next deposed that
A-2 stated that they decided to kill Bhojireddy and planned for the same and accordingly killed him and he (A.2) requested him to save them, that A-2 stated to him that the deceased and A-1 went to
Medaram on 18-09-2017 and booked room and stayed there, that
A-2 went to Bhoopalpalli and brought A-3 to A-5 in a van to
Medaram, that from there they took Bhojireddy in the van to
Vangapally bridge and that there they killed him.
37)P.W.4 next deposed that A-2 further stated to him that thereafter, A-4 and A-5 went in a van to Bhoopalpalli and Kondalu (A-3) got down at Karimnagar along with A-1 and A-2 and took amount from A-1 and A-2 and went away. He further deposed that
A-2 also stated to him that A-1 gave complaint to Police and went to
Fair 39 S.C.68 of 2019 their house and that thinking that their acts would come out in any way they approached him. He further deposed that then he took A-1 and A-2 to Kamalapur Police Station and handed over them to Circle
Inspector of Police, Kamalapur, that Police examined him and that
Husnabad Magistrate also recorded his statement.
38)Apart from the evidence of P.W.4 and the said extra judicial confession made by A-1 and A-2 to P.W.4 the prosecution is relying on the evidence of Investigating Officers and mediators for alleged confessions of A-3 to A-5 and recovery of case property.
39)P.W.12, the Investigating Officer deposed that on 27-12-2017 at about 8.00 a.m. P.W.4 came to Police Station along with A-1 and A-2 and stated that A-1 and A-2 confessed before him that they, i.e., A-1 and A-2 killed Bhojireddy. The evidence of P.W.12 also shows that P.W.4 also stated that A-1 and A-2 stated to him that they along with three others killed the deceased due to some family problems and that then he informed about the same to the then
Circle Inspector of Police, Elkathurthy, i.e., P.W.14.
40)P.W.12 next deposed that thereafter the said Circle
Inspector of Police recorded the statement of P.W.4, that on the basis of the same he altered the section of law from Section 174, Cr.P.C. to
Section 302, I.P.C. read with Section 34, I.P.C and issued alteration memo Ex.P.23 and sent the same to the Magistrate concerned and
Fair 40 S.C.68 of 2019 that he sent requisition to the Tahsildar concerned to send F.I.R., inquest and other relevant documents to the Magistrate concerned.
P.W.12 next deposed that he handed over the case diary file to the above said Circle Inspector for further investigation as the offence was grave in nature.
41)P.W.14 deposed that on 27-12-2017 P.W.12 gave intimation to him stating that P.W.4 produced A-1 and A-2 in Police station stating that they confessed before him that they killed
Bhojireddy, that then he took up the investigation in this case, that in the presence of P.W.9 and L.W.14 B.Srinivas A-1 and A-2 stated that they along with three others, i.e., A-3 to A-5 killed the deceased in this case and that they also stated that A-6 also planned for murder of the deceased Bhojireddy.
42)P.W.14 further deposed that on the information of A-1 and
A-2 he recovered M.O.7 phone and M.O.9 sim card from A-2 and
M.O.8 phone from A-1, that he prepared panchanamas for the same, the relevant portions of which are Exs.P-11 and P-12, that M.Os.7 and 8 contain sim cards and that later he issued arrest cards for arresting A-1 and A-2.
43)P.W.14 further deposed that later along with A-1 and A-2 and above said mediators he went to the scene of offence situated at Vangapalli Bridge, that from there he went to Etuturunagaram,
Fair 41 S.C.68 of 2019 that he observed the scene of offence which is situated in the room in the temple premises in the presence of P.W.10 and L.W.16
P.Srinivas Reddy and prepared C.D.F. Ex.P.13 and map Ex.P.14, that he examined P.W.5 and recorded his statement, that he verified
Ex.P.6 room rent receipt copy and that later he returned to
Elkathurthy Circle Office and sent A-1 and A-2 to court for remand.
44)P.W.5 deposed that he is working as an Attender in
Medaram Temple since six years, that on 18-09-2017 in the afternoon one devotee by name Bhojireddy came and enquired whether rooms were available in the temple, that he booked one room and went away, that he allotted Room No.3, that he issued receipt to him and he paid Rs.200/- as room rent, that he can identify the signature of their Executive Officer, that Ex.P.5 letter shown to him which was addressed to the Circle Inspector of Police,
Elkathurthy contains his signature, that Ex.P.6 is attested copy of receipt issued by him in favour of said Bhojireddy and it contains the signature of himself and deceased Bhojireddy and that Ex.P.7 is attested copy of extract of daily collection record (for short D.C.R) maintained by Assistant Commissioner of Endowment.
45)P.W.5 deposed that he cannot identify the photos of said
Bhojireddy as if several devotees would be visiting and that he does not know who accompanied the said Bhojireddy on that day and he cannot identify them. He was cross-examined by the learned Addl.
Fair 42 S.C.68 of 2019 Public Prosecutor with the permission of the court after treating him hostile. In such cross-examination he denied to have stated to Police as in Ex.P.8 under Section 161(3), Cr.P.C that the wife of Bhojireddy came with him on that day, that he identified photo of dead body of said Bhojireddy, that Bhojireddy and his wife stated to him that they were wife and husband, that he can identify them and that he can identify the said lady who came with Bhojireddy on that day if he sees her. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
46)In the cross-examination on behalf of the accused P.W.5 admitted that Sammakka Saralamma Temple is under the control of
Endowment Department, that there will be staff member for collection of room rent and allotment of rooms separately, that there is Junior Assistant to collect room rent and to allot room, that Police examined the Junior Assistant concerned and he is one
Madhusudhan, that Police collected only photostat copies of said receipt and extract of D.C.R., that Police examined him after 2 or 3 months after the said incident and that he does not know actually whether the person came on that day was Bhojireddy or not. He added that on seeing the signature of said Bhojireddy he was saying that he was Bhojireddy. He deposed that they would not collect identity proof from devotees while allotting rooms.
47)Ex.P.8 was not got proved through the evidence of
Investigating Officer by the prosecution by confronting it to him.
Fair 43 S.C.68 of 2019 However, though P.W.5 did not support the prosecution case by identifying the photo of said Bhojireddy, his evidence and Exs.P.5 and
P.6 and the evidence of P.W.14 clearly established that the said
Bhojireddy went to Medaram and took room in the Temple premises.
The fact of A.1 also accompanying the deceased on that day is established by the prosecution from the evidence of P.W.4 and the
F.I.R. Ex.P.43 which was issued on the basis of Ex.P.19 complaint.
48) The evidence of P.W.16, the Magistrate shows that in the
T.I.P. conducted by her as per Ex.P.37 proceedings P.W.5 identified
A-1 as the suspect. Though the identification in T.I.P. is weak piece of evidence and identification in court is only substantive piece of evidence as P.W.5 used to see several devotees he cannot be expected to remember all of them. Ex.P.19 complaint is admissible in evidence to say that the deceased and A.1 went to Laknavaram on 18-09-2017 and returned to Hanamkonda bus stand at about 6.30 p.m. This is because the fact of A-1 giving Ex.P.19 complaint was proved from the evidence of P.W.12 and the evidence of P.W.12 clearly shows that he registered the crime and issued Ex.P.43 F.I.R.
on the basis of Ex.P.19 complaint.
49)P.W.9 deposed that on 27-12-2017 at 11.30 a.m. their
Tahsildar, Kamalapur directed him and L.W.14 Srinivas to go to Police
Station Kamalapur, that they accordingly went there and that the
Police produced A-1 and A-2 at that time before them and asked A-1
Fair 44 S.C.68 of 2019 and A-2 to state to them as to what happened. He next deposed that A-2 stated that A-1 is his second daughter and as husband of
A-1, i.e., Bhojireddy was harassing A-1 by coming in drunken condition and by beating her they planned to kill him, that A-2 also stated that they, i.e., himself and A-1 killed Bhojireddy with the assistance of one van driver and two assistants of said van driver.
50)P.W.9 next deposed that thereafter, they enquired A-1 and she also stated that herself and her father and the said others killed her husband as he was harassing her, that on the basis of the said information the Police recovered one cell phone i.e., M.O.7 from A-2 and one cell phone and one Idea sim card, i.e., M.O.8 from A-1 and that the relevant portions panchanamas conducted by Police at that time are Exs.P-11 and P.12.
51)As P.W.9 deposed that he cannot say exactly from whom the sim card shown to him was seized by the Police and as he deposed that the Police showed one idea sim card and another sim card at that time he was cross examined by the learned Addl. Public
Prosecutor with the permission of the court after treating him hostile.
In such cross-examination P.W.9 deposed that the sim card shown to him was also seized at that time by the Police but he cannot say from whom it was seized and said sim card is M.O.9 and it contains numbers 89917, 33075, 81254 and 3195 on one side. He admitted
Fair 45 S.C.68 of 2019 that M.Os.7 and 8 shown to him which were seized from A-2 and A-1 contain sim cards.
52)In the cross-examination on behalf of the accused it was elicited from P.W.9 that himself and another mediator went to Police
Station on that day as part of their official duties and on the instructions of Tahsildar, that their Tahsildar did not give any document in writing directing him and another mediator to act as mediators, that he did not claim any travelling allowance for going to
Kamalapur Police Station on that day to act as mediators, that the
Tahsildar gave instructions to him and said B.Srinivas (L.W.14) at a time to go to Police Station, that he did not act as mediator in any case prior thereto and that by the time he went to Police Station A-1 and A-2 were present there.
53)P.W.9 next deposed that he did not ask A-1 and A-2 as to from what time they were in Police Station, that proceedings of said panchanamas took place in the hall of Police Station which was in the middle and there were rooms on front and back of the said hall, that no other person related to or connected with A-1 and A-2 was present at that time in the said hall, that one constable present in the Police Station scribed the said panchanamas, that he does not have idea about colours of cell phones seized from A-2 and A-1 mentioned in the panchanamas and that as per Ex.P.12, the relevant portion of panchanama pertaining to recovery of cell phone from A-1
Fair 46 S.C.68 of 2019 it was mentioned that the colour of said cell phone was black as per observation of himself and another mediator.
54)P.W.9 denied the suggestion that the signatures of himself and another mediator on the said panchanama pertaining to A-1 are appearing as if they were overwritten or rewritten. He further denied the suggestion that no panchanamas were conducted and no cell phones were recovered from A-1 and A-2 as deposed to by him, that he signed the said panchanamas in Police Station formally after they were prepared by Police and that A-1 and A-2 did not inform to him and another mediator about themselves and others killing the said
Bhojireddy as deposed to by him. Therefore, the evidence of this witness P.W.9 is consistent to the extent of seizure of M.Os.7 to 9 at the instance of information given by A-2 and A-1.
55)P.W.14 deposed that on 29-12-2017 he apprehended A-3,
A-4 and A-5 (since died) at Sairam Modern Rice Mill, Mulkanoor road,
Elkathurthy at about 1700 hours and in the presence of P.W.11 and
L.W.17 G.Ramesh he interrogated them. P.W.11 also deposed about the same. He deposed that on 29-12-2017 at 5.00 p.m. the Sub
Inspector of Police, Elkathurthy phoned to their Tahsildar and then their Tahsildar asked him and said Ramesh (L.W.17) to go to a place near Sairam Modern Rice Mill, R & B road of Elkathurthy to Mulkanoor and that himself and said Ramesh (L.W.17) went there accordingly.
Fair 47 S.C.68 of 2019
56)P.W.14 further deposed that he recovered M.O.10 D.C.M.
Van, M.O.11 cell phone with sim card and M.O.12 cash of Rs.18,000/- from A-3 on his information and conducted panchanama, the relevant portion of which is Ex.P-15. He further deposed that he seized M.Os.13 to 16 from A-4 on his information under panchanama, the relevant portion of which is Ex.P-16. He next deposed that he seized M.Os.17 and 18 from A-5 on his information under panchanama, the relevant portion of which is Ex.P-17 and
Ex.P.18 is photo pertaining to cash recovered from A-3 and A-4.
57)P.W.11 corroborated the evidence of P.W.14 and deposed that they found one DCM van, one two wheeler and A-3 to A-5, that the Circle Inspector of Police, Elkathurthy was also present there, that A-3 confessed about commission of offence in this case, i.e., killing of one Bhojireddy by himself and A-4 and A-5 (since died) due to disputes between him (deceased) and his wife, i.e., A.1 and that the Police seized M.Os.10 to 12 from A-3.
58)P.W.11 next deposed that the Police enquired A-4 at 6.40 p.m. on the same day and he also confessed that himself and A-3 and A.5 (since died) killed Bhojireddy as stated by A-3 and that the
Police seized M.O.13 bike, M.O.14 cell phone, M.O.15 jockey rod and
M.O.16 cash of Rs.14,000/- in the denomination of Rs.500/- from A-4.
Fair 48 S.C.68 of 2019
59)P.W.11 further deposed that the Police enquired A-5 (since died) on the same day at about 7.15 p.m. or so and he also stated that himself and A-3 and A-4 and A-1, A-2 and A-6 planned and killed said Bhojireddy, that the said Circle Inspector of Police recovered
M.O.17 cell phone and M.O.18 digital watch from A-5 (since died). He also deposed that Exs.P.15 to P.17 are relevant portions of panchanamas conducted for the said information given by A-3, A-4 and A-5 (since died) and seizures of said material objects at their instance.
60)P.W.14 also deposed about arrest of A-3, A-4 and A-5 (since died) and sending them to court for remand. P.W.14 further deposed that he got recorded the statements of P.Ws.1 and 4 and
L.W.5 Mittai @ Dandu Srinivas under Section 164, Cr.P.C by the
Magistrate concerned, i.e., P.W.16. P.W.16, the Magistrate also
deposed that on 27-12-2017 she received Ex.P.38 requisition and recorded the statements of P.Ws.1 and 4 and L.W.5 Mittai @ Dandu
Srinivas under Section 164, Cr.P.C.
61)P.W.14 next deposed that he got conducted Test
Identification Parade (for short T.I.P.) of A-1 and A-2 by P.W.5. P.W.16, the Magistrate also deposed about the same. She further deposed that Ex.P.36 is the requisition received by her from C.I of Police,
Elkathurthy to conduct T.I.P. of A-1 and A-2 by P.W.5 and that Ex.P.37 is the proceedings for the said T.I.P. conducted by her on 09-02-2018
Fair 49 S.C.68 of 2019 from 3.40 p.m. to 4.45 p.m. She further deposed that P.W.5 stated the suspect No.2 was not present and that P.W.5 identified A-1 as the suspect offender.
62)P.W.14 next deposed that he addressed letters to service providers for furnishing call data in respect of cell phones seized for investigation, that he also addressed Ex.P.24 letter to the Execute
Officer, Sri Sammakka Saralamma Jathara, Medaram for furnishing original receipt book for the month of September, 2017. He next deposed that on his transfer he handed over the case file to P.W.15, the C.I of Police, Elkathurthy.
63)P.W.15 deposed that he apprehended A-6 on 18-06-2018 at Sapthagiri Colony, Karimnagar at 2.30 p.m., arrested her and sent her to Court for remand. He further deposed that he collected Ex.P-6 photostat copy of room rent receipt from P.W.5 in Sri Sammakka
Saralamma Devasthanam and that he collected the document pertaining to particulars of job of the deceased from Bayer company.
64)P.W.15 also deposed that Ex.P.25 is the statement of account of the deceased collected by him from Axis Bank, that
Ex.P.26 is call data particulars from idea cellular limited pertaining to the cell phones seized in this case and that Ex.P-27 is the certificate under Section 65 B(4)(c) of Evidence Act pertaining to Ex.P-26 issued by Nodel Officer of the said company. He further deposed that he
Fair 50 S.C.68 of 2019 collected copies of applications filed at the time of purchasing cell phones M.Os.7, 8 and 11 and call data particulars from idea cellular limited, that Exs.P-28 to P-30 are copies of said applications, that
Ex.P-31 to P-33 are the said call data particulars, that he collected
Ex.P-34 from Nodel Officer of Airtel furnishing information of call data particulars of four phone numbers mentioned in the same, that
Ex.P-35 is the certificate under Section 65B(4)(c) of Evidence Act in connection with Ex.P-34 and that later he filed charge sheet.
65)It has to be seen whether from the above evidence the prosecution was able to establish the guilt of the accused. Before appreciating the evidence on record it is necessary to refer to the authoritative legal pronouncements relied on by the learned
Advocate for the accused.
66)The learned advocate for the accused relied on the following judgments in support of his contentions:-
(i) T.Laxmi Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh {2019(2) ALT (Crl.) 25}. In this case before Hon’ble High Court the prosecution case is that the accused killed her husband and made extra judicial confession before P.W.5. According to P.W.10, Investigating Officer that P.W.5 handed over the accused to him. P.W.5 did not reduce into writing the extra judicial confession. P.W.5 admitted in cross- examination that the accused was in the police station for a period of
Fair 51 S.C.68 of 2019 three days prior to approaching him. Hence, it was observed that
P.W.5 handing over the accused to P.W.10, Investigating Officer is only a make believe story. Further P.W.5 was not related to the accused. Hence, it was observed that possibility of making extra judicial confession by the accused before P.W.5 was unnatural and improbable as normally the accused may approach the person in whom he reposes confidence and make extra judicial confession in order to escape from the clutches of law.
67)However, in this judgment Hon’ble High Court referred to judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in Sahadevan Vs. State of
Tamilnad {(2012) 6 SCC 403}, Tejinder Singh @ Kaka Vs. State of Punjab {(2013) 12 SCC 50} and Vijay Shankar Vs. State of
Haryana {(2015) 12 SCC 644} in which Hon’ble Apex Court framed guidelines in respect of extra judicial confession. They are very useful for deciding whether the alleged extra judicial confession
before P.W.4 by A.1 and A.2 can be accepted or not. It is quite apt to
refer to those guidelines and they are as follows:-
i)Extra judicial confession is weak piece of evidence by itself. It has to be examined by the court with greater care and caution; ii)It should be made voluntarily and should be truthful; iii)It should inspire confidence; iv)Extra judicial confession attains greater credibility and beneficiary value if it is supported by a chain of cogent circumstances and is further corroborated by other prosecution evidence;
Fair 52 S.C.68 of 2019
v)For an extra judicial confession to be a basis of conviction, it should suffer from any material discrepancies and inherent improbabilities and; vi)Such statement essentially has to be proved like any other fact in accordance with law.
68)The above principles laid down in Sahadevan case cited above were reiterated in Tejinder Singh @ Kaka’s case cited supra.
In Vijay Shankar’s case cited supra Hon’ble Apex Court while reiterating the said principles further observed that extra judicial confession is weak piece of evidence and the courts are to view it with greater care and caution. The Hon’ble High Court further observed in the case of T.Laxmi cited supra that for an extra judicial confession to form the basis of conviction it should not suffer from any material discrepancies and inherent improbabilities.
(ii) Boya Akuthota Nagaraju Vs. State represented by
Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and another {2018(2) ALD (Crl.) 326}. In this case the accused is alleged to have murdered his wife suspecting her fidelity for several years. The prosecution case is that the accused made extra judicial confession to P.W.12 in the presence of P.W.14 and that P.W.12 had no acquaintance with the accused but P.W.14 had acquaintance. In those circumstances it was held that the alleged extra judicial confession would not inspire confidence of the court to record conviction as it was not supported by any corroborative evidence to establish that the accused is the person who murdered his wife.
Fair 53 S.C.68 of 2019
(iii) Vadde Yadulu Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh {2018(2) ALD (Crl.) 326}. In this case before Hon’ble High Court the accused was alleged to have committed offences punishable under
Sections 302 and 380, I.P.C. and it was a triple murder. The accused in the said case was alleged to have made extra judicial confession to P.W.8 on phone belonging to third deceased. Moreover in the inquest panchanama pertaining to second deceased the said fact was not mentioned though P.W.8 was cited as a witness.
(iv) Dhalsingh Devangan Vs. State of Chattisgarh {2016 3 ACR 3113}. In this case before Hon’ble Supreme Court it was held that statements of P.Ws.1 and 2 in the court were inconsistent with their reporting at Police Station and hence, their evidence was held as not admissible. It appears that P.Ws.1 and 2 in the said case claimed in the court that they were aware that the accused killed his wife and daughters even before they reaching the police station.
But as per the statements given to police they went to the place where P.W.6 in the said case was crying aloud that the accused killed his wife and children, that they, i.e., P.Ws.1 and 2 went to police station along with one Chaithram and at their instance information was recorded in General Diary, the extract of which was
Ex.P.37 and that the said Ex.P.37 was completely silent about any relevant features regarding crime or role of the accused and in fact it
Fair 54 S.C.68 of 2019 showed lack of knowledge about crime. It was only mentioned in
Ex.P.37 in the said case that they heard sounds of shouting coming from the house of the accused. In those circumstances it was held that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 was not admissible.
(v) Bogadi Venkataramaiah Vs. State represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh {2018(2) ALD (Crl.) 792}. In this case before High Court the offences alleged were punishable under Sections 201, 302, 450 and 511, I.P.C. The allegation was that the accused killed the deceased by strangulating his neck with a wire and also pouring pesticide into his mouth.
Autopsy report stated that death of the deceased was due to strangulation as well as insecticide poison found in the stomach, liver and kidney.
It was observed by Hon’ble High Court that doctor who conducted autopsy opined that the deceased died due to asphyxia due to strangulation as well as Fenvalrate, an insecticide poison, that it was not the case of prosecution that the accused had strangulated as well as poisoned the deceased, that on the contra the prosecution case was that pesticide was sprinkled/poured into the mouth of the deceased so as to create death as suicide.
It was further observed in the said case that as per the medical evidence such as autopsy report and the deposition of the doctor and also F.S.L. Report an insecticide poison was found in the
Fair 55 S.C.68 of 2019 stomach, liver and kidney pieces, that unless poison was administered there would be no possibility of the same being found in the stomach, liver and kidney pieces and that in those circumstances it was held that the prosecution did not prove the manner and the real cause of death.
(vi) Bommathoti Edukondalu Vs. State of Andhra
Pradesh {2019(3) ALT (Crl.) 156}. In this case the offences alleged were punishable under Sections 302 and 201, I.P.C. The cause of death was throttling or smothering. The evidence of P.Ws.1, 5 and 7 was to the effect that the death of deceased was due to administration of poison and it was not supported by post mortem examination certificate issued by the doctor and as per the same the cause of death was due to throttling or smothering and the doctor was not sure as to how the deceased died. The evidence of P.W.4 regarding presence of A.2 had to be viewed with suspicion.
In those circumstances it was held that it was not safe to rely upon the evidence of P.W.4 to show the presence of A.2 in the house on the night of incident and connect her with the crime when cause of death as projected by the prosecution was different from what has been stated by the doctor who conducted post mortem examination.
(vii) Budda Gangadaram Vs. State of Andhra
Pradesh represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra
Fair 56 S.C.68 of 2019 Pradesh, Hyderabad{2018(3) ALT (Crl.) 167}. In this case the accused was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201, I.P.C. In this case Hon’ble High Court held that the last seeing theory was an important circumstance in case based on circumstantial evidence, that the same alone was not sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and it requires corroboration.
While referring to judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Navanitha Krishnan Vs. State represented by Inspector of Police {2018(2) ALT (Crl.) 60 (SC)} and other cases. It was further observed that P.W.13 in the said case before whom the accused was stated to have made extra judicial confession had turned hostile and nothing worth mentioning could be elicited from him by the prosecution, that except the evidence of P.Ws.7 and 8 and the alleged extra judicial confession made by the accused to P.W.13 no other evidence was let in by the prosecution to corroborate the last seen theory and that suspicion however strong cannot take place of proof. It was further observed that the prosecution failed to adduce legally acceptable evidence to hold the appellant guilty of committing murder of the deceased beyond reasonable doubt.
(viii) Anil Kumar Goswamy Vs. State of Andhra
Pradesh represented by its Mr.Public Prosecutor {2019(1) ALD (Crl.) 797}. In this case before Hon’ble High Court the offences alleged
Fair 57 S.C.68 of 2019 were punishable under Sections 302 and 201, I.P.C. The trial court convicted the accused. Against the same the appeal was filed. It was observed in this case that in a case based on circumstantial evidence last seen theory cannot be made applicable when there is substantial gap between time when accused and deceased were allegedly seen together and time of death. It was further observed in this judgment that merely because skeleton alleged to be of a woman was found no presumption could be drawn that death was homicidal.
P.W.8 in the said case gave evidence that during interrogation the accused confessed. Hence, it was observed that it gives rise to a strong presumption that alleged confession was not voluntary.
(ix) Bollikonda Venkanna and another Vs. State of
Andhra Pradesh represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of
Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad {2018(2) ALD (Crl.) 335}. In this case
before Hon’ble High Court A.1 and A.2 were convicted by the trial
court for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201, I.P.C.
Hence, appeal was filed. In the said case P.Ws.12 and 13, the panch witnesses for observation of scene of offence denied seizure of any material objects in their presence.
Fair 58 S.C.68 of 2019 P.W.12 deposed that something was written on a paper on which they were made to sign. P.W.12 was not treated as hostile by the prosecution. P.W.13 deposed that Police got written contents of
Ex.P.4 in his presence and asked him to attest and he did. Both the said witnesses nowhere in their evidence referred to seizure of any hair from the hands of the deceased. It was further observed in this case that a doubt arose whether really the hair was seized at that time or that the hair was planted subsequent to arrest of A.1 as there was no evidence to show that the said hair was deposited
before the court immediately after the seizure. There was also no
evidence on record to show that the said two accused were responsible for the death of the deceased and in fact, not even any inkling of material was placed on record to show the involvement of
A.2 in the commission of offence. In those circumstances Hon’ble
High Court observed that the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution did not form a chain of events so as to connect the accused with the crime.
(x) Bojja Chandraiah and others Vs. State of
Telangana {2019(1) ALT (Crl.) 116}. In this case A.1 to A.4 were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302, I.P.C. read with Section 34, I.P.C. by the trial court. Hence, they preferred appeal. Hon’ble High Court observed that when a case is based on circumstantial evidence chain of circumstances have to be proved by the prosecution.
Fair 59 S.C.68 of 2019
The witness who took the deceased to the house of the deceased from Puranpool Bridge was not examined. The witness who claimed to be neighbour of the deceased and who informed about the incident to P.Ws.1 and 2 was also not examined. P.Ws.1 and 2 were found to be interested witnesses being close relations of the deceased and hence, it was observed that their evidence cannot be believed without there being any support from other evidence.
Apart from that there was abnormal delay of six days in lodging complaint to the police and it was not explained by the prosecution.
There was also no direct evidence to connect the accused with the commission of offence. In those circumstances Hon’ble High Court held that circumstantial evidence let in by the prosecution was not sufficient and complete so as to inspire confidence of the court that the accused are the real culprits. Observing so, Hon’ble High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence.
(xi) Ezajhussain Sabdarhussain and another Vs.
State of Gujarat {A.I.R. 2019 SC 1525}. In this case the accused were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302, I.P.C.
read with Section 34, I.P.C. by the trial court. Hon’ble High Court also confirmed the conviction and sentence. Hence, the accused approached Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to its judgment in
Mohansingh Vs. State of Punjab {A.I.R. 1963 SC 174} wherein it
Fair 60 S.C.68 of 2019 was held that Section 34, I.P.C. deals with cases of constructive criminal liability like Section 149, I.P.C., that it provides that where a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of common intention of all, each of such person is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone, that if the common intention in question animates the accused persons and if the said common intention leads to the commission of the criminal offence charged, each of the persons sharing common intention is constructively liable for the criminal act done by one of them and that just as combination of persons sharing the same common object is one of the features of an unlawful assembly, so the existence of a combination of persons sharing the same common intention is one of the features of Section 34, I.P.C.
In the said case before Hon’ble Supreme Court other than the allegation that the accused persons caught hold of the deceased there was no allegation about accused instigating action or overt act attributed to the said appellants actively participating in the commission of crime as alleged and from the conduct of the accused persons it seems that there was no meeting of minds to form prearranged plan. Hence, Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the appellants therein cannot be held guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302, I.P.C. with the aid of Section 34, I.P.C.
Fair 61 S.C.68 of 2019
Hon’ble Supreme Court in this judgment also observed
that however similar the facts may seem to be in a cited precedent, the case in hand should be determined on facts and circumstances of that case in hand only and the same similarity of the facts in one case cannot be used to determine the conclusion of the fact in another. From this judgment it is very clear that each case has to be decided on its own facts and circumstances only and mere similarity of the facts in one case cannot be used to determine the conclusion of the fact in another.
(xii) State of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Public
Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh and another Vs. Sivala
Chandra Reddy and others {2017(2) ALD (Crl.) 987}. In this case
before Hon’ble High Court the trial court acquitted the accused for
the offence punishable under Section 302, I.P.C., read with Section 34, I.P.C. Hence, appeal was filed.
Hon’ble High Court in the said case observed that motive
for the accused to do with the life of the deceased was alleged illicit
intimacy, that while charge sheet as also charge framed by court were suggestive of both poisoning as well as smothering with pillow as cause of death, that final opinion suggested only poisoning as cause of death of the deceased, that charge of cause of death due to asphyxia was not supported by medical evidence, that therefore, prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond
Fair 62 S.C.68 of 2019 all reasonable doubt and that the trial court rightly acquitted all the accused for the charge framed against them.
From this judgment it is very clear that when the allegation is that death was due to poisoning and smothering and medical evidence was that death was only due to poisoning it has to be said that guilt of the accused was not proved.
(xiii) Baby @ Sebastian and another Vs. Circle
Inspector of Police, Adimaly {2016 0 Supreme (SC) 586}. In this case Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that an order of acquittal should not be interfered in the absence of manifest illegality and perversity in the findings given by the trial court and reasons resulting in grave miscarriage of justice.
In the said case before Hon’ble Supreme Court statements of witnesses before police under Section 161, Cr.P.C.
were not confronted to them and marked as exhibits and that the
Investigating Officer did not mention about those statements and hence, it was observed that such statements cannot be relied upon for conviction. This judgment is also useful to say that the evidence of chance witness can be relied upon if his presence was adequately explained. This judgment is also useful to say that while appreciating the evidence contradictions in testimony of witnesses cannot be relied upon such conviction.
Fair 63 S.C.68 of 2019
(xiv) Bishu Sarkar and others Vs. State of West
Bengal {2017 0 Supreme (SC) 227}. In this case the evidence on record established that none of the appellants dealt with any blow by any weapon and all that they did was to participate in the scuffle. In those circumstances Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the appellants were entitled to benefit of doubt. This judgment is useful to say that when there is no evidence on record regarding giving of any blow by the accused with any weapon and if the accused participated in the scuffle along with other persons then they are entitled to benefit of doubt.
(xv) Baliraj Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh {2017 0 Supreme (SC) 396}. In this case the offence alleged was punishable under Section 302, I.P.C. read with Section 34, I.P.C. The trial court convicted both the accused. Hon’ble High Court also confirmed the said judgment. The appellant/A.2 filed appeal before
Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court basing on the
evidence in the said case held that conviction cannot be sustained observing that eye witnesses gave contradictory evidence. The oral evidence was in variance with medical evidence, that recovered weapon was not matching description of weapon in medical evidence, that the evidence of witnesses was contradictory regarding nature of injury, that the police officer who conducted seizure was not examined, that there were contradictions between
Fair 64 S.C.68 of 2019 ocular evidence and medical evidence, that subsequent improvement by one of the eye witnesses casting serious doubt on the prosecution case and that therefore, conviction cannot be sustained.
Therefore, it is clear from this judgment that when there are contradictions in the evidence of eye witnesses and when there is contradiction between ocular evidence and medical evidence and when recovered weapon is not tallying with the weapon as per medical evidence and when recovered weapon was not sent to the doctor conducting postmortem examination to ascertain whether fatal injury could be resulted by it and when there is contradiction regarding nature of injury in the evidence of witnesses the accused cannot be convicted.
(xvi) Machindra Vs. Sajjan Galpha Rankhamb and others {2017 0 Supreme (SC) 377}. In this case the offence alleged was punishable under Section 302, I.P.C. read with Section 34, I.P.C. The trial court convicted A.1 and A.2. Hon’ble High Court allowed the appeal and acquitted A.1 and A.2. Hence, appeal was filed before Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the appeal observing
that the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and not beyond all doubt. In the said case there were contradictions
Fair 65 S.C.68 of 2019 in the evidence of P.W.4 and P.W.10 and none of them were eye witnesses to the alleged incident. The medical examination of accused was done prior to the date of arrest and not on the date of arrest. The material witness was not examined rendering prosecution version doubtful. The delay in lodging F.I.R. was not explained. The opinion of cause of injury was not mentioned in the deposition of doctor nor in post mortem report. In those circumstances it was observed that the prosecution failed to prove that death was caused due to injury inflicted by the recovered weapon.
From this judgment it is clear that if the medical evidence is such that it does not give any clear opinion with respect to the injuries inflicted on the body of victim or deceased as the case may be. The possibilities that the injuries might have been caused by the accused were also ruled out. It is further clear that such medical evidence is also important in assessing testimony of eye witnesses and in determining whether the testimony of eye witnesses can be safely accepted. It is also clear from this judgment that the accused will be having right to be held not guilty when there are substantial doubts.
(xvii) Smt.Gargi Vs. State of Haryana {2020(1) ALT (Crl.) 209 (SC)}. In this case the offence alleged was punishable under Section 302, I.P.C. read with Section 120-B, I.P.C. In this case the accused were wife and brothers-in-law of the deceased. The trial
Fair 66 S.C.68 of 2019 court convicted all the accused. In the appeal Hon’ble High Court acquitted brothers-in-law of the deceased and confirmed the conviction of wife of the deceased. Then she filed appeal before
Hon’ble Supreme Court. Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the appeal
observing that there were major flaws and shortcomings in the prosecution case.
From this judgment it is clear that in a case based on circumstantial evidence there must be cogent evidence establishing the implicating circumstances forming complete chain that rules out any`` other hypothesis except guilt of appellant.
69)Keeping in view the legal principles laid down in the above said judgments it has to be stated now whether the evidence on record can be accepted to say that the prosecution proved its case.
70)On a careful consideration of the entire evidence on record this court has no hesitation to say that there is no any legally acceptable evidence against A-6 to connect her with the offences alleged against her in this case. This is because even according to the prosecution, only A-1 and A-2 made extra judicial confession
before P.W.4. No incriminating material was seized from A-6 by the
Police to connect her with the offences alleged in this case. Without any incriminating material seized from A-6 on her information
Fair 67 S.C.68 of 2019 connecting her with the offences alleged in this case merely basing on the alleged extra judicial confession of A-1 and A-2 before P.W.4 and alleged confession of the accused before Police A-6 cannot be said to have committed the offences in this case with which she stood charged.
71)P.W.4 is not totally a stranger to A-1 and A-2. His evidence shows that P.W.1 is younger brother to him by courtesy. As already stated earlier apart from the prosecution evidence on record
A-1, A-2 and A-6 clearly stated during the examination under Section 313, Cr.P.C. that P.Ws.1 and 4 are cousins. It is elicited from his cross- examination on behalf of the accused that he conducted two panchayaths and those panchayaths were conducted in the house of
Bhojireddy which was his rented house, that the said panchayaths were in respect of complaint of A-1 against deceased that he was taking liquor and harassing her, that he conducted such panchayaths about 5 or 6 months prior to the death of the deceased, that he alone conducted the said panchayaths and no other person was present along with him and that in the said panchayaths he advised them to live properly.
72)P.W.4 deposed that he did not attend the marriage of A-1 and the deceased, that A-1 and the deceased lived for 5 or 6 months near his house and that he does not know how they were living prior thereto. Therefore, from the above evidence it cannot be said that
Fair 68 S.C.68 of 2019 P.W.4 is a person unknown to A-1 and A-2. As P.W.4 conducted some panchayaths and as A.1 and the deceased lived near his house for some period and as he was related to P.W.1 as cousin the possibility of A-1 and A-2 making extra judicial confession before him cannot be ruled out and it cannot be said that it is unnatural.
73)There is basis for this conclusion of this court and it is
Ex.P.42. Ex.P.42 shows that P.W.4 gave it to P.W.12 by reducing into writing the information given by him to Police mentioning extra judicial confession made by A-1 and A-2 before him. It shows that it was given by P.W.4 to P.W.12 by producing A-1 and A-2 before the
Police and while handing over them to Police.
74)It is no doubt true, there are some contradictions in the evidence of witnesses regarding time at which A-1 and A-2 were produced before Police by P.W.4. According to P.W.4 that A-1 and A-2 made said extra judicial confession at 7.00 p.m. on 26-12-2017 and his cross-examination shows that he produced A-1 and A-2 on the next day, i.e., on 27-12-2017 at 10.00 a.m. or 11.00 a.m. According to P.W.12 that P.W.4 came to Police Station at about 8.00 a.m. on 27-12-2017 and stated that A-1 and A-2 confessed before him that they killed Bhojireddy. Therefore, the said time gap is not material so as to adversely affect the prosecution case. This is because the evidence of P.W.14 shows that P.W.12 gave to him at 8.00 a.m. on 27-12-2017 the intimation about P.W.4 producing A-1 and A-2.
Fair 69 S.C.68 of 2019
75)In addition to it, P.W.12 clearly deposed that he enclosed
Ex.P.42 to alternation memo Ex.P.23. He denied the suggestion that
Ex.P.42 was fabricated by him and that it was not given by P.W.4 to him. Ex.P.23 alternation memo clearly shows that the statement of
P.W.4 was enclosed to it along with copy of F.I.R. and inquest.
Therefore, there is no any circumstance to suspect the genuineness of Ex.P.42. If really it was fabricated it would not have been mentioned in Ex.P.23 alternation memo. It was clearly mentioned in the same that when efforts were being made to collect some more clues P.W.4 produced A-1 and A-2 before P.W.12 stating that they confessed before him about commission of this offence along with
A-3, A-4 and A-5 (since died).
76)Simply because P.W.4 did not depose about his reducing into writing as per Ex.P.42 the said extra judicial confession and simply because P.W.12 did not refer to it in his chief examination it cannot be said that Ex.P.42 has to be ignored. The prosecution and investigating agency should have taken steps for recalling P.W.4 for confronting Ex.P.42 to him to ascertain about the same and the prosecution and investigating agency should have got elicited from
P.W.12 in this chief examination itself about Ex.P.42. But on that ground the evidence of P.W.12 on record cannot be ignored.
Fair 70 S.C.68 of 2019
77)In the cross-examination it was suggested to P.W.12 by the accused as to whether P.W.4 gave to him in writing about A-1 and
A-2 confessing before him and then he clearly deposed that P.W.4 gave him in writing about A-1 and A-2 confessing before him and he enclosed it to alternation memo and the said information given by
P.W.4 in writing to him is Ex.P.42.
78)In Ezajhussain Sabdarhussain and another Vs. State of Gujarat {A.I.R. 2019 SC 1525} cited (xi) supra a case should be determined on facts and circumstances of that case only and mere similarity of the facts in one case cannot be used to determine conclusion of fact in another case. The facts and circumstances of the cases cited above on behalf of the accused are not exactly similar to those of the case on hand.
79)The evidence of P.W.4 in this case regarding A-1 and A-2 making extra judicial confession before him is consistent and convincing. It is also corroborated by the evidence of P.W.12 and
Ex.P.42. The recoveries of material objects from A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4 and A-5 (since died) referred to above also give strength to the prosecution case. Therefore, the court is of the considered opinion that the evidence of P.W.4 regarding A-1 and A-2 making extra judicial confession before him and Ex.P.42 can be relied upon.
Fair 71 S.C.68 of 2019
80)In the cross-examination of P.Ws.9, 11, 12, 14 and 15 no material circumstance is elicited to discredit their testimony. The evidence of P.Ws.9 and 11, the independent witnesses coupled with the evidence of Investigating Officers referred to above proved the prosecution case that A-1 to A-4 committed the offences alleged against them along with A-5 (since died). The panchanamas, the relevant portions of which are marked as Exs.P.11, P.12, P.15, P.16 and P.17 are containing the signatures of A-1, A-2, thumb impression of A-3 and signatures of A-4 and A-5 respectively and it is also a circumstance against the accused.
81)During the cross-examination of P.W.13, the doctor also no material circumstance is elicited to discredit his testimony. His consistent evidence shows that the death is due to cumulative effect of smothering and multiple injuries. He also gave reasoning stating that basing on injury No.7, i.e., mucosal surfaces of both upper and lower lips were abraded and erosed and congested he could say that the death was due to smothering. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.13 can be relied upon regarding cause of death of the deceased.
82)For the above reasons, the Court holds that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that A-1 to A-4 along with A-5 (since died) conspired together to kill Bhojireddy and shared common intention to kill Bhojireddy and accordingly killed him. The court further holds that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable
Fair 72 S.C.68 of 2019 doubt the guilt of A-1 and A-2 regarding their abetting and assisting
A-3, A-4 and A-5 (since died) in killing the said Bhojireddy.
The court further holds that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that A-1 to A-4 along with A-5 (since died) caused disappearance of evidence regarding commission of murder of the deceased Bhojireddy for a considerable time of more than three months. This is because A-1 to A-4 were with the deceased
before his death and A-1 gave report Ex.P.19 as if she did not know
anything about murder of deceased and A-1 and A-2 made extra judicial confession before P.W.4 only on 26-12-2017 and A-3 and A-4 were silent till they were apprehended by Police on the information given by A-1 and A-2 and P.W.4.
83)Accordingly the court holds that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of A-1 to A-4 along with A-5 (since died) for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, I.P.C.,
Section 302, I.P.C. read with Section 34, I.P.C and Section 201, I.P.C.
The court further holds that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of A-1 and A-2 for the offence punishable under Section 302, I.P.C. read with Section 109, I.P.C.
The court further holds that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of A-6 for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, I.P.C., Section 302, I.P.C. read with
Fair 73 S.C.68 of 2019 Section 109, I.P.C. and Section 201, I.P.C. The point is answered accordingly.
84)IN THE RESULT, the accused Nos.1 to 4 are found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, I.P.C., Section 302,
I.P.C. read with Section 34, I.P.C and Section 201, I.P.C. and accused
Nos.1 and 2 are also found guilty for the offence punishable under
Section 302, I.P.C. read with Section 109, I.P.C. and under Section 235(2), Cr.P.C. they are convicted for the said offences. The accused
Nos.1 to 4 have to be heard regarding sentences to be imposed on them.
The accused No.6 is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, I.P.C., Section 302, I.P.C. read with
Section 109, I.P.C. and Section 201, I.P.C and under Section 235(1),
Cr.P.C she is acquitted of the said offences. The accused No.6 shall be set at liberty and her bail bonds shall stand cancelled after six months.
Dictated to the Stenographer Grade - I, transcribed by him,
corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 27th day of January, 2021.
III ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,
KARIMNAGAR.
Fair 74 S.C.68 of 2019
85)After pronouncement of judgment the case is passed over for some time to give time to the accused Nos.1 to 4 to think over and to explain the circumstances regarding quantum of sentences to be imposed on them.
86)Heard the accused Nos.1 to 4 regarding quantum of sentences to be imposed on them. The accused No.1 stated that she is having little aged daughter, that her age is 10 years, that she cannot live in the absence of her (A.1) and that there is nobody to look after the welfare of her daughter. The accused No.2 stated that he is aged about 70 years, that he underwent kidney surgery, that his heart beating is more and that he is suffering from sugar disease, blood pressure disease, back pain and neck pain.
The accused No.3 stated that he is having old aged parents and that there is nobody to look after them. The accused
No.4 stated that his father died about three years back, that his mother committed suicide by hanging herself about four months back and that his wife is pregnant.
87)Under Section 120-B, I.P.C whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, or where no expres provision is made in the I.P.C.
for the punishment of such conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence. Therefore, the
Fair 75 S.C.68 of 2019 punishment to be imposed in this case for the offence punishable under Section 120-B, I.P.C. is death or imprisonment for life and fine.
88)The punishment prescribed for the offence punishable under Section 302, I.P.C. read with Section 34, I.P.C. is death or imprisonment for life and fine. The punishment prescribed for the offence punishable under Section 201, I.P.C is imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to imprisonment for seven years and fine. The punishment prescribed for the offence punishable under Section 302, I.P.C. read with Section 109, I.P.C is same as for the offence abetted, i.e., death or imprisonment for life and fine.
89)In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the evidence on record the court is of the considered opinion that this is not a rarest of rare cases for imposing death penalty on accused Nos.1 to 4. In view of nature of the offences proved in this case the the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act or Section 360,
I.P.C or any other benevolent provision cannot be applied.
90)Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into consideration the circumstances pleaded by the accused
Nos.1 to 4, the accused Nos.1 to 4 are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for LIFE and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand) each in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months each for the offence punishable under Section 120-B, I.P.C.
Fair 76 S.C.68 of 2019
The accused Nos.1 to 4 are also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for LIFE and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand) each in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months each for the offence punishable under Section 302, I.P.C read with Section 34, I.P.C. The accused Nos.1 to 4 are also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay fine of
Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand) each in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months each for the offence punishable under
Section 201, I.P.C.
The accused Nos.1 and 2 are also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for LIFE and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand) each in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months each for the offence punishable under Section 302, I.P.C read with Section 109, I.P.C. In the facts and circumstances of the case all the substantive sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently.
The total fine amount is Rs.14,000/- (Rupees fourteen thousand only).
M.Os.1 to 6, 9 and 15 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time or after disposal of appeal if any. M.Os.7, 8, 11, 14, 17 cell phones and M.O.18 digital watch shall be confiscated to the
State, i.e., they should be sold in public auction and the proceeds shall be remitted to the State after expiry of appeal time or after disposal of appeal if any.
Fair 77 S.C.68 of 2019 M.O.10 Van shall be returned to its original owner after due enquiry regarding ownership and identity after expiry of appeal time or after disposal of appeal if any. M.O.13 bike was already returned to one Masaboina Srinu towards interim custody as per the orders dated 14-11-2019 in Crl.M.P.No.55 of 2019 and the undertaking given by said Srinu shall be in force till expiry of appeal time or till disposal of appeal if any.
M.O.12 cash of Rs.18,000/- (Rupees eighteen thousand only) and M.O.16 cash of Rs.14,000/- (Rupees fourteen thousand only) shall be confiscated to the State after expiry of appeal time or after disposal of appeal if any.
The accused No.1 is in remand from 28.12.2017 to 17.03.2018 (80 days) The accused No.2 is in remand from 28.12.2017 to 23.02.2018 (58 days) The accused No.3 is in remand from 30.12.2017 to 12.03.2018 (73 days). The accused No.4 is in remand from 30.12.2017 to 12.03.2018 (73 days). Office to issue conviction warrants against the accused Nos.1 to 4 mentioning their remand periods. Office to furnish copy of judgment to the accused
Nos.1 to 4. The accused Nos.1 to 4 are informed that they are having right to prefer appeal before Hon’ble High Court.
Dictated to the Stenographer Grade - I, transcribed by
him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 27th day of January, 2021.
III ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,
KARIMNAGAR.
Fair 78 S.C.68 of 2019
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:
P.W-1: Muduganti Mahipal Reddy. P.W-2: Panjala Mahender. P.W-3: Jannu Bikshapathi. P.W-4: Muduganti Mukunda Reddy. --None-- P.W-5: Bure Kishan. P.W-6: Katanguri Vijayender Reddy. P.W-7: Akunuri Rajani Babu. P.W-8: Chennamadhavuni Ramkumar. P.W-9: Soudamalla Srinivas. P.W10:Muduganti Ajithkumar @ Ajith Reddy. P.W11:Sannapu Thirupathaiah. P.W12:P.Nagababu. P.W13:Shaik Khajamohiuddin. PW14:K.Sathish Chander Rao. PW15:T.Ravi Kumar. PW16:G.Anusha, J.M.F.C., Husnabad. PW17:Dr.P.Narsimha Rao.
EXHIBITS MARKED: FOR PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1:–Photograph.
Ex.P.2:–Photograph.
Ex.P.3:–Photograph.
Ex.P.4:--Compact Disc containing Exs.P.1 to P.3 photos.
Ex.P.5:18-07-2018 Letter of Executive Officer, Medaram Temple addressed to the Circle Inspector of Police, Elkathurthy.
Ex.P.6:18-09-2017 Copy of receipt issued by P.W.5 in favour of deceased Bhojireddy.
Ex.P.7:27-09-2017 Copy of extract of daily collection record maintained by Assistant Commissioner of Endowment, Medaram.
Ex.P.8:27-12-2017 Relevant portion marked in the statement of P.W.5 under Section 161(3), Cr.P.C.
Fair 79 S.C.68 of 2019 Ex.P.9:19-09-2017 Crime Details Form No.1 with sketch.
Ex.P10:19-09-2017 Inquest panchanama.
Ex.P11:27-12-2017 Relevant portion marked in confession and recovery panchanama of A.2.
Ex.P12:27-12-2017 Relevant portion marked in confession and recovery panchanama of A.1.
Ex.P13:27-12-2017 Crime Details Form No.2.
Ex.P14:27-12-2017 Map.
Ex.P15:29-12-2017 Relevant portion marked in confession and recovery panchanama of A.3.
Ex.P16:29-12-2017 Relevant portion marked in confession and recovery panchanama of A.4.
Ex.P17:29-12-2017 Relevant portion marked in confession and recovery panchanama of A.5.
Ex.P18:–Photograph pertaining to cash, i.e., M.Os.12 and 16.
Ex.P19:19-09-2017 Complaint given by accused No.1.
Ex.P20:08-12-2017 Report of Forensic Science Laboratories, Red Hills, Hyderabad.
Ex.P21:20-09-2017 Report of post mortem examination.
Ex.P22:20-09-2017 Final opinion given by P.W.13.
Ex.P23:27-12-2017 Express alteration memo.
Ex.P24:27-12-2017 Requisition given to Executive Officer, Sammakka Saralamma Jathara, Medaram.
Ex.P25: 13-11-2017 Copy of statement of account of the deceased obtained from Axis Bank.
Ex.P26:15-02-2018 Call data particulars obtained from Nodel Officer, Cellular Limited.
Ex.P27:15-02-2018 Certificate under Section 65-B(4)(c) of Evidence Act issued by Nodel Officer of Idea Cellular Limited pertaining to Ex.P.26.
Ex.P28:14-07-2014 Copy of application of A.3.
Ex.P29:--Copy of application of A.2.
Ex.P30:--Copy of application of A.2.
Ex.P31:--Call data particulars of A.1.
Ex.P32:--Call data particulars of A.2.
Ex.P33:--Call data particulars of A.3.
Ex.P34:02-04-2018 Certificate issued by Nodel Officer of Airtel.
Fair 80 S.C.68 of 2019 Ex.P35:02-08-2018 Certificate under Section 65-B(4)(c) of Evidence Act.
Ex.P36:06-02-2018 Requisition given to P.W.16 to conduct Test Identification Parade.
Ex.P37:09-02-2018 Test Identification Proceedings of P.W.16.
Ex.P38:27-12-2017 Requisition given to P.W.16 for recording the statements of P.W.1, P.W.4 and L.W.5 Mittai @ Dandu Srinivas under Section 164, Cr.P.C.
Ex.P39:–Photograph.
Ex.P40:–Photograph.
Ex.P41:–Compact Disc.
Ex.P42:27-12-2017 Statement of P.W.4 given to Sub Inspector of Police, Kamalapur.
Ex.P43:19-09-2017 First Information Report in Crime No.146 of 2017 of Kamalapur Police Station.
FOR DEFENCE:
--Nil--
MATERIAL OBJECTS:
M.O.1: Purse.
M.O.2: Photostat copy of driving licence of deceased Bhojireddy.
M.O.3: Visiting card.
M.O.4: One single chappal.
M.O.5: One pair of chappals.
M.O.6: One shirt.
M.O.7: Itel cell phone seized from A.2.
M.O.8: Intex cell phone seized from A.1.
M.O.9: SIM Card containing numbers 89917, 33075, 81254 and 3195.
M.O.10: Van bearing No.AP-28-W-5465.
M.O.11: Cell phone seized from A.3.
M.O.12: Cash of Rs.18,000/- seized from A.3.
M.O.13: Bike bearing No.TS-24-0230 seized from A.4.
Fair 81 S.C.68 of 2019
M.O.14: Nokia cell phone seized from A.4.
M.O.15: Jockey rod seized from A.4.
M.O.16: Cash of Rs.14,000/- seized from A.4.
M.O.17: Micromax cell phone seized from A.5.
M.O.18: One digital watch seized from A.5.
III ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,
KARIMNAGAR.