1
Sessions Case No.60/2017 Dated 10.06.2022
COURT OF SESSION :: NELLORE DIVISION :: NELLORE
(In the Court of the III Additional District & Sessions Judge,
Nellore).
Present: Smt. M. MADHURI, V Addl. District & Sessions Judge, (FAC) III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Nellore. ***
Friday, this the 10th day of June, 2022.
SESSIONS CASE No.60/2017
(Crime No.123/2016 of Nellore Rural Police Station) (P.R.C.34/2016 on the file of IV A.J.M.F.C., Nellore) ***
1. Name of the Complainant: Sub Inspector of Police, Nellore Rural Police Station.
2. Description of the accused:1. Kakuturu Umadevi, W/o Hari Krishan Reddy, aged about 37 years, caste by Reddy, N/o Pookerpalli village, Rapur Mandal, now residing at Chandra Babu Nagar, Nellore.
2. Pengiri Raja Mohan Reddy @ Raja, S/o Penchala Reddy, aged about 25 years, caste by Reddy, Pookerpalli village, Rapur Mandal.
3. Offences : Charge under sec.302 IPC for committing murder of deceased Bijjam Purushotham Reddy by beating him with pestle and iron rod on his head and caused severe head injury.
4. Plea of the accused : Not guilty.
5. Finding of the Judge :Found guilty.
6. Sentence or order : In the result, the accused No.1 is found guilty for the offence punishable under Sec.302 IPCand accordingly, she is 2
Sessions Case No.60/2017 Dated 10.06.2022
convicted under Sec.235(2) of Cr.P.C., and sentenced to undergo for life imprisonment and also to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 (six) months.
However, the accused No.2 is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sec.302 r/w 34 IPC and he is acquitted under Sec.235(1) Cr.P.C. and directed to execute a self bond for Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) under Section 437-A Cr.P.C. to appear before the Appellate Court if any appeal is preferred.
The remand period of accused No.1 from 05.04.2016 to 12.07.2016 is directed to be set off against the sentence imposed above under Sec.428 of Cr.P.C. M.Os.1 to 5 and 7 to 9 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. MO6 being Album of photographs with CD shall be kept in the record.
Forward the material objects marked as M.Os.1 to 5 and 7 to 9 in C.P.R.No.3/2020 to committal court i.e.,IV Addl.
Judicial Magistrate of I Class,
Nellore for carrying out order of disposal of case property after the expiry of appeal time.
The accused No.1 informed that she has got right of appeal against the present judgment.
A copy of judgment is provided to the accused at free of cost.
Send copy of Judgment to D.L.S.A., Nellore.
7. Prosecution conducted by : Smt. N. Jamuna Rani, Addl. Public Prosecutor, III Addl. Sessions Court, Nellore.
8. Accused defended by : Sri P.Madhusudhana Reddy, Advocate for A1 and A2.
J U D G M E N T
3
Sessions Case No.60/2017 Dated 10.06.2022
1. The Inspector of Police, Nellore Rural Police Station, charge-sheeted against the accused 1 and 2 for the offence under
Section 302 r/w 34 of I.P.C., in Crime No.123/2016 of Nellore Rural
Police Station.
2.The provenance of the case of the prosecution as per the averments made in the charge sheet succinctly is as follows:-
A2 is the brother of A1 and she is a resident of Chandrababu
Nagar i.e., the scene of offence. The deceased Bijjam Purushotham
Reddy was residing at penthouse in BMR Residency, Z.P. Colony,
Podalakur Road, Nellore and eking out his livelihood by doing plots and other businesses. A1 is a married woman, having a daughter and a son aged 18 years and 16 years respectively. Her husband
K.Harikrishna Reddy is running a Cool drink shop. About six years prior to the incident in this case, they joined in Apartment of the deceased in Z.P. Colony on rent and she developed illicit intimacy with the deceased. On knowing the same, Sunanda, the wife of the deceased used to quarrel with A1 and on that the husband of A1 left her and children and went away. After one year, she vacated the said house and started residing in her parents’ house. After staying for about 2 years there, about 3 years prior to the incident in this case, the deceased went to her and brought them on a promise to look after her, her children, kept them in a rented house at Chandrababu
Nagar, Nellore and used to visit her now and then. Whileso, about 2 years prior to the incident in this case, the deceased constructed a house at Satyanarayanapuram, Chandrababu Nagar and kept A1 and her children in the said house. He took hand loan of Rs.1,20,000/- from her younger brother, as such, A2 got acquaintance with the deceased and subsequently in spite of repeated demands, he failed to repay the said debt to him. The deceased used to beat A1 on that ground and also suspecting her fidelity. He used to compel A1 to send her daughter to him for sexual intercourse. When the same was brought to the notice of A2, he chastised the deceased number of times. But in spite of the same, there was no change in the attitude of 4
Sessions Case No.60/2017 Dated 10.06.2022
the deceased. Whileso, he sold away the said house six months prior to the date of incident and started compelling A1 to vacate the house.
On that, she was asking him to repay the debt to her brother, but he refused. On 02.03.2016 the deceased quarrelled and beat her with a stick on her head and caused injury and threatened that he will not repay the loan amount and kill her if she did not vacate and therefore, both the accused strongly decided to do away the deceased and waiting for an opportunity.
While so on 29.03.2016 at about 12-00 Noon in the temporary absence of the children, the deceased came to the house of A1, then
A2 took him to a Wine shop, provided liquor and brought him back to the house. At about 3-00 p.m., the deceased picked up quarrel with her as usual. At about 4-00 p.m., A2 beat him on his head with a pestle. As a result, he sustained bleeding injury and fallen on cot.
When he tried to raise up, A1 beat him with an iron rod on his head and A2 again beat with the same pestle. Consequently, the deceased sustained severe bleeding injuries and died on the spot. Then, A2 left the pestle in the house. A1 kept the door closed and went away with the iron rod. On the way, she threw the iron rod in a thorny bushes situated in vacant plots. On 30.03.2016 at 17-00 hours on a written report by K.Gopal Reddy, the brother-in-law of the deceased,
R.Narasimha Rao, the then A.S.I. of Nellore Rural Police Station registered a case in Crime No.123/2016 under Sec.302 I.P.C. On receipt of the information about the offence by Y.Srinivasa Rao, the then Inspector of Police, Nellore Rural Circle, proceeded to the scene of offence, received the copy of the F.I.R and took up investigation.
He secured one Kaluvai Prabhakar Reddy and Bollavaram
Venkateswarlu Reddy as mediators, observed the scene, seized the blood stained pestle, light yellow colour pillow cover having blood stains found on the cot, Red colour with red, black, orange, light green colour stripes designed rug stained with blood, blood stained marble flooring piece, control marble flooring piece under the cover of scene observation report at about 19-00 hours attested by the said mediators. He prepared a rough sketch of the scene apart from got 5
Sessions Case No.60/2017 Dated 10.06.2022
photographing of the same. On 30.03.2016 he secured
Panchayatdars by name one Jonnathoti Srinivasulu Reddy, Pamuru
Narayana Reddy and Billam Ramachandra Reddy and also blood relatives of the deceased, conducted inquest over the dead body between 6-00 a.m. to 9-00 a.m., and after completion of inquest, he forwarded the dead body for post-mortem examination. On 05.04.016 at about 8-30 a.m., when O.Durga Prasad Rao, Inspector of Police, Nellore Rural Circle was present at Police Station, one
G.V.Subrahmanyam, the V.R.O., Nellore Bit-I produced A1 and A2 along with a written report stating that they made extra judicial confession before him. On that he secured the presence of two mediators by name Kaluvai Prabhakar Reddy and Bollavaram
Venkateswarlu Reddy and in their presence, both the accused made confession about the commission of offence. On that, he arrested them under the cover of panchnama attested by mediators at about 11-00 hours. On the basis of the said confession of A1 lead the police party and mediators to Satyanarayanapuram and produced the iron rod and the same was seized by the Inspector under the cover of seizure panchnama attested by the said mediators at about 12-15 hours. During the course of investigation, the seized material objects were forwarded to RFSL, Guntur through a letter of advice. The RFSL authorities on examination issued report with opinion vide File
No.GNT/SER/135/2016, dated 23.04.2016 opining that human blood is detected on the said objects. The Medical Officer who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, issued the certificate with an opinion that the death is due to shock and haemorrhage due to head injury. Hence, the charge sheet.
3.The learned Magistrate on compliance of Section 207
Cr.P.C. committed P.R.C.34/2016 to the court of Sessions Nellore
Division, Nellore since the offence is exclusively triable by court of
sessions. Later Sessions Case No.60/2017 is made over to this court
for disposal according to law.
4.On appearance of accused on hearing them and learned
Addl.Public Prosecutor and on perusal of material placed on record, 6
Sessions Case No.60/2017 Dated 10.06.2022
charge U/Sec. 302 r/w 34 of IPC was framed against the accused 1 and 2, read over and explained to them in Telugu, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. On behalf of prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 15 were examined and Exs.P1 to P13 and M.Os.1 to 9 are marked. On behalf of the defence, DW1 is examined and Exs.D1 to D5 are marked.
6.After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused 1 and 2 were examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. They denied the incriminating circumstances in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and A1 filed a written statement contending that on 03.04.2016 while she was at the house of her parents at Pokuluvaripalli, Rapur mandal, at about 6- 00 a.m., the Inspector of Police/Durga Prasad along with two male and one female constable came to her house and brought her to
Nellore Rural Police Station at about 10-00 a.m., by Jeep. On the same day, the Inspector of Police made her to make a phone from her
Cell phone to her younger brother Raja Mohan Reddy (A2) that they will send them back after inquiry. On that, on 04.04.2016 at about 11.45 a.m., her brother (A2) came to Police Station. On 03.04.2016 at about 4-00 p.m., while she was at Nellore Rural Police Station,
PW1 came there and saw her. On 05.04.2016 she along with her brother were produced before the Magistrate. A2 also filed his written statement stating that on 03.04.2016 her elder sister Umadevi (A1) made phone to him and informed that she was kept in Rural Police
Station and the police made her to call him to asking him to come to the Police Station. Accordingly, on 04.04.2016 in the afternoon, he reached Police Station, subsequently on 05.04.2016 he along with his sister was produced before the Magistrate.
7.Heard both sides. The learned defence counsel filed written arguments also.
8.Considering the contentions of learned Additional Public
Prosecutor and defence counsel and perusing the material available on record, the points that arise for determination are as follows:
7
Sessions Case No.60/2017 Dated 10.06.2022
1. Whether the prosecution could establish beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused 1 and 2 murdered the deceased?
2. To what finding?
Point No.1:
9.In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the defacto complainant who is the brother-in-law of the deceased is examined as PW1. His evidence goes to show that he married the elder sister of the deceased. He deposed that two years prior to 29.03.2016, the deceased constructed a house at
Satyanarayanapuram, Chandrababu Nagar, behind the Sub Station,
Podalakur road in the name of his wife. The deceased and A1 were having living relationship and residing in the said house. One month prior to 29.03.2016, the deceased sold the said house and even after selling the said house, A1 was residing continuously. But the purchasers were pressuring the deceased to vacate the house, there disputes arose between A1 and the deceased since five days prior to the date of incident. On 29.03.2016, after having breakfast, by 10-00 a.m., the deceased went to Rajarajeswari temple to perform pooja for his new bike, thereafter he did not return to house. On 30.03.2016 one Thuraka Anjaneyulu (PW5) informed him over phone that the motor cycle of the deceased was in front of the house since 29.03.2016 morning and also informed about noticing the dead body of the deceased in the said house. After receiving information, himself and his relatives reached the said house i.e., the scene of offence by 3.45 or 4-00 p.m., and observed the injuries over the head and the dead body was in pool of blood. He also noticed MO1 blood stained pestle by the side of the dead body and gave Ex.P1 report and the entire hall was with a pool of blood. PW5/Thuraka Anjaneyulu informed him that A1 and one Radhakrishna Reddy killed the deceased. His evidence further goes to show he is resident of Z.P.
8
Sessions Case No.60/2017 Dated 10.06.2022
Colony, 2nd Cross, Podalakur road and the deceased and his family was residing in the same colony at BMR Apartments.
10.PW2/P.Manish Reddy is the son of the deceased. His evidence goes to show that his mother Sunanda is a house wife. He testified that 7 years prior to his giving evidence, A1 used to reside in the ground floor at BMR residency and there was an illegal intimacy between his deceased father and A1. He further deposed that A1 is having a son and a daughter and he knows A2 as he used to visit the house of A1. There were disputes between his mother and his father due to the behaviour of A1. Therefore, his mother got vacated A1 from BMR Residency. In the year 2015, his father constructed a house at Chandrababu Nagar in the name of his mother for running of water plant. A1 along with her children came and started residing in the said house and his father also used to reside in the said house along with them. While so, on 30.03.2016 at about 4-00 p.m., PW1 informed him over phone as to the death of his father. After receiving said information, they went to the scene of offence and found the dead body of his father with blood stain injuries. The neighbours informed about the death of the deceased in the hands of A1 and A2.
11.PW3/P.Laksha Reddy is the father-in-law of the deceased.
It is his evidence that on 30.03.2016 at about 5-00 p.m., he received a phone call from his relatives as to the death of the deceased and on receipt of the said information, he came to Chandrababu Nagar and noticed the dead body of the deceased in a pool of blood.
12.PW4/P.Hazarath Reddy deposed that he knows the deceased and A1 that he constructed the house of the deceased at
Chandrababu Nagar in the year 2014 or 2015 and that the deceased and A1 were residing in the said house.
13.PW5/T.Anjaneyulu deposed that he knows the deceased, but he does not know A1 and A2. On 27th and 28th March, 2016 he worked as a mason for construction of compound wall of the house of the deceased at Satyanarayanapuram. On 30.03.2016 at 4-00 or 4- 30 p.m., he went to the said house to collect wages, as the door was closed, he saw from the window and noticed that the deceased was 9
Sessions Case No.60/2017 Dated 10.06.2022
fell on the ground. Immediately, he made a call to the Corporator
Suribabu and he in turn informed the same to the police, later, the police came. However, he turned hostile and deposed that he does not know who were residing in the said house.
14.PW6/V.Suresh though deposed that he knows the deceased, but he also turned hostile and deposed that he does not know accused 1 and 2 and anything about this case, that after knowing the death of the deceased, he went to see him.
15.PW7/K.Prabhakar Reddy is one of the mediators for scene observation. He deposed as to the police observing the scene of offence in his presence and in the presence of one Bollavaram
Venkateswarlu Reddy on 30.03.2016 and seizure of M.Os.1 to 3 under the cover of Ex.P4 scene observation report. He further deposed that on 05.04.2016 the police again called himself and said
Venkateswarlu Reddy to Nellore Rural Police Station and in their presence, the police examined A1 and A2. On confession made by accused No.2 under Ex.P5 between 10-00 or 11-00 a.m., they all proceeded to Satyanarayanapuram colony along with A1 and there
A1 showed bushes where she kept iron rod MO4. Then, the police seized MO4 under the cover of Ex.P6.
16.PW8 is the Medical Officer who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased deposed as to Ex.P7 Post-mortem report issued by him, the contents therein with opinion that cause of the death is due to shock and haemorrhage due to head injury.
17.PW9/P.Narayana Reddy, one of the mediators for the inquest deposed as to the police conducting inquest in his presence and in the presence of other mediators under the cover of Ex.P8
Inquest report.
18.PW10 is the then V.R.O. of Kothuru deposed that on 05.04.2016 at about 7-00 or 8-00 a.m., one Umadevi and Raja Mohan
Reddy (A1 and A2) came to the Panchayat office stating that they were absconding in a murder case of one Purushotham Reddy that then he took both of them to Nellore Rural Police Station and handedover the report of the above said two persons to the police 10
Sessions Case No.60/2017 Dated 10.06.2022
that he drafted the report on dictation of the said persons under
Ex.P9. However, he was declared as hostile as he deposed that he cannot identify the said two persons.
19. PW11 is the Constable who shifted the dead body of the deceased to Government Hospital, Nellore for post-mortem examination and handed over the same to his blood relatives after completion of post-mortem examination. PW12 is the then A.S.I. of
Police, Nellore Rural Police Station deposed as to registering Ex.P10
F.I.R. basing on Ex.P1 report of PW1 on 30.03.2016 at about 17-00 hours.
20.The wife of the deceased B.Sunanda is examined as
PW13. Her evidence goes to show that the deceased was doing real estate business and they have been residing in 4th floor of BMR residency Apartments, Z.P. Colony, Nellore from 2010. She deposed that A1 used to reside in the ground floor of their Apartment and she developed illegal intimacy with her husband and when she came to know about the same, she got vacated A1 from the said Apartment.
Thereafter, her husband purchased a plot at Satyanarayanapuram,
Nellore in her name. In the said plot, they constructed a house in the year 2014 by taking loan from Corporation Bank. She further deposed that she came to know that while construction is going on, the deceased started residing along with her children and A1 in the said house. The deceased used to visit A1 in the said house.
Therefore, disputes arose between herself and the deceased. In the year 2015 she sold the said house as they could not pay the loan. It is her evidence that the said house was constructed for the purpose of installing water plant. A1 quarrelled with the deceased for 3 days prior to the incident for not giving any money to her on selling the house. She further testified that A2 is the brother of A1 and both A1 and A2 quarrelled with the deceased for money and the deceased informed the same to her. The deceased asked A1 to vacate the house as she sold away the same, but A1 demanded money from the deceased and did not vacate the same. She further deposed that on the date of the death, the deceased left the house after performing pooja as he purchased a new scooty, that pooja was performed to the 11
Sessions Case No.60/2017 Dated 10.06.2022
vehicle, but after taking break fast, he left the house. On 30.03.2016 at about 4-00 p.m., PW1 Gopal Reddy, husband of her sister-in-law informed to her father-in-law over phone that the deceased died as he was beaten with a pestle at Satyanarayanapuram house sold by her.
Then, her father-in-law, her son, her father went to the scene of offence. Ten days thereafter, possession of the house was delivered to the purchaser. When the purchaser asked about the belongings of the deceased, she told them to do whatever they like.
21.PW14 the then Inspector of Police, Nellore. His evidence goes to show that during temporary absence of the regular Inspector of Police, Nellore Rural Police Station, he took up investigation as per the instructions of their Superior Officer. He deposed that on 30.03.2016 when he received a telephone information from PW12 about the offence at 5-30 p.m., he visited the scene of offence, received Ex.P1 copy of F.I.R, secured the presence of PW1, examined, that by securing PW7 and one B.Venkateswarlu Reddy, he observed the scene of offence where they found the dead body of the deceased in one portion of the house in the main hall with the bleeding injuries on the cot. He further deposed as to seizure of blood stained pestle, pillow cover, MO5 bed sheet, marble flooring pieces and controlled floor marble pieces from the scene of offence under the cover of Ex.P4 Scene observation report and also preparing Ex.P12 Rough sketch. He further deposed that since it was night, on the next day at 6-00 a.m., he conducted inquest under
Ex.P8 by securing PW9 and other panchayatdars and blood relatives of the deceased and forwarded the dead body for post-mortem examination.
22.PW15 is the then Inspector of Police, Nellore Rural Police
Station. His evidence goes to show that he took up investigation in this case on 03.04.2016 from PW14 as by the date of offence he was on Chief Minister Camp Office duty. He deposed that after taking up investigation, he visited the scene of offence, again examined the scene, examined the witnesses and recorded statements and on 5.4.2016 while he was present in the Police Station, PW10 came to
Police Station and produced A1 and A2 before him along with Ex.P9 12
Sessions Case No.60/2017 Dated 10.06.2022
stating that they made a confession as to the commission of offence in this case that they killed the deceased. It is his evidence that thereafter he called PW7 and one Bollaram Venkateswarlu Reddy and examined in their presence and he got recorded Ex.P5 report. In pursuance of the statement of A1 under Ex.P5, he proceeded to
Chandrababu Nagar and recovered MO4 Iron rod from the bushes near the scene of offence under Ex.P6 seizure report and arrested A1 and A2 and forwarded them to judicial custody. He further deposed that on 13.4.2016 he forwarded material objects to RFSL for examination. After receipt of R.F.S.L. report and Post-mortem examination report, he filed the charge sheet.
23.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor urged that the evidence of prosecution witnesses corroborated by Exs.P1 to P13 and M.Os.1 to 9 establishes the guilt of the accused. Though PW10 failed to identify A1 and A2 in the Court before whom the accused made extra judicial confession, he categorically deposed the name of the accused who came to him on 05.04.2016 informing that they were absconding in a murder case and he recorded their confession statement under Ex.P9. In pursuance of the extra judicial confession made to PW10, he produced A1 and A2 before PW15 and the confession made to him in the presence of PW7 and another mediators under Ex.P5, they seized MO4 one of the weapon used for killing the deceased under Ex.P6. Therefore, though she contends that the prosecution established the guilt of the accused and the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 proves that there is extra marital relationship between the deceased and A1 and the evidence of PW4 also shows that the deceased and A1 resided together in the scene of offence house. Therefore, the circumstantial evidence of PW4 with the support of evidence of PW10 and Exs.P5, P6 and P9 proves the case of the prosecution.
24.On the other hand, the learned defence counsel vehemently urged the evidence of prosecution witnesses is full of discrepancies and there are no eye witnesses to the incident. By referring to the evidence of PW10 who is a kin pin witness to the prosecution contends he is declared as hostile and his testimony 13
Sessions Case No.60/2017 Dated 10.06.2022
cannot be believed. According to the prosecution and his evidence he produced A1 and A2 before the police on 05.04.2016. But by referring to the evidence of PW1 during cross examination wherein it is elicited that he saw A1 at Rural Police Station on 03.04.2016.
Therefore, he urged that producing of A1 and A2 on 05.04.2016 cannot be believed. Further, by referring to Ex.D1 G.O. showing list of Public Holidays in the year 2016 issued by the Government obtained under Right to Information Act which shows 05.04.2016 was declared as a Public Holiday in view of “Babu Jagjeevan Rao
Jayanthi”, it is elicited from PW10 that during Public Holidays, they also will have holiday and it is elicited from his cross examination that the distance between his house to Panchayat Office is nearly 16 Kms, he canvassed that the contention of the prosecution and the evidence of PW10 that A1 and A2 met him on 05.04.2016 in the morning hours at Panchayat Office is false. The cross examination of
PW10 that on 21.01.2020 his father-in-law was admitted in Narayana
Hospital, Nellore. When a person present in the Court hall was shown and was asked on 21.01.2020 the said person met him at
Narayana Hospital, he gave an evasive reply that he does not remember. However, when a video clipping was shown to him containing himself and the said person he replied that he might have met the said person. By referring to this portion, he contends that men may lie but video never lies. The defence examined the said person as DW1 and through him the pen drive containing audio and video recording is marked as Ex.D2 along with memory card Ex.D3 and the conversation under Ex.D2/D3 was reduced into writing and marked as Ex.D4 with Ex.D5 certificate of the person which shows that when DW1 approached PW10 and inquired by referring to the names of A1 and A2 gave any confession before him, he replied that nobody came to him that he might have signed as usual on the report drafted by the police. By relying on a judgment of the Hon’ble Apex
Court in R.M.Malkani Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 1973 SUPREME COURT 157 wherein it is held that even if the evidence is illegally obtained, it is admissible, hence though PW10 is not aware of recording the conversation, the same is admissible. He 14
Sessions Case No.60/2017 Dated 10.06.2022
further contends that as per the evidence of PW10 in his chief examination, two persons Umadevi and Raja Mohan Reddy approached him and he took them to Nellore Rural Police Station and handed over the report of the said two persons, that he drafted a report on the dictation of the said two persons. He contends that it shows that Ex.P9 is recorded at Police Station. Therefore, by relying on a decision of Gauhati High Court in Ramlal Lohar Vs. The State of Assam reported in 1981 Cri.L.J. 1734 he contends that Ex.P9 is hit by Section 26 of Indian Evidence Act as the alleged extra judicial confession was drafted in the police station in the presence of
Inspector.
25.By referring to the admission of PW12 who registered
Ex.P10 F.I.R., that he kept column No.14 blank without obtaining the signature of the complainant which is a mandatory and contends that if F.I.R does not carry signature or thumb impression of informant,
F.I.R. is liable to be rejected. In order to buttress his contention, he relied on a judgment of Bombay High Court between State of
Maharastra Vs. Ahamad Gulam Nabi Shaikh reported in 1997
Cri.L.J. 2377.
26.According to prosecution, A1 and A2 gave extra judicial confession before PW10 who is V.R.O. on 5.4.2016 in the morning hours. It may be a fact that 5.4.2016 might be a public holiday in view of Babu Jagjivan Rao Jayanthi as evident from Ex.D1. Therefore, it may be a holiday to PW10 also. But at the same time, it is elicited by the learned Public prosecutor in the re-examination that the duties of police department and Revenue department are 24 hours and they will always be available. Therefore, simply because 5.4.2016 is a public holiday, the entire case of the prosecution cannot be thrown aside. But what is to be appreciated is whether there is any possibility for A1 and A2 to make an extra judicial confession before
PW10. According to the prosecution, the offence took place on 29.03.2016 and F.I.R. was registered on 30.03.2016. But it is not the case of prosecution that A1 and A2 had any prior acquaintance with
PW10 or they are neither relatives nor friends. Therefore, the accused have no earthly reason to appear before him to make such a 15
Sessions Case No.60/2017 Dated 10.06.2022
statement. On the other hand, irrespective of Exs.D2 to D5 conversation between DW1 and PW10 in the hospital after a long gap, his evidence in chief examination itself is not inspiring confidence and in fact he was declared as hostile. However, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the defence by relying on a judgment in Balu Sonha Shinde Vs. State of Maharastra reported in 2002(2) ALD (Crl.) 554 (SC), the evidence of hostile witness cannot be totally rejected such portion of it in favour either to prosecution or accused can be relied upon, if it is consistent with the case of prosecution or accused respectively. Therefore, what is to be considered is whether the evidence of PW10 though he is hostile, is helpful to prove the version of the prosecution. His evidence is very vague though he stated he recorded Ex.P9 statement his evidence is not clear whether it is recorded at Police Station after handing over
A1 and A2 or before proceeding to the Police Station. On the other hand, at the cost of repetition, it cannot be ignored that there is no reason for A1 and A2 to make such a confession before PW10 by going to Panchayat Office on a public holiday with whom they have no prior acquaintance. Therefore, the evidence of PW10 and making of confession statement is not believable.
27. Now what is to be considered is irrespective of the evidence of PW10 and extra judicial confession whether the rest of the evidence is establishing the guilt of the accused, it may be a fact that at column No.14 of Ex.P10 F.I.R., the signature of the informant i.e., PW1. Further, it may be a fact that PW5 who is said to be the first person has seen the dead body deposed in chief examination immediately he informed to Corporator Suribabu and he in turn informed to Police. But according to PW1, PW5 directly informed him and he gave report to police. By referring to the evidence of PW5, who is declared as hostile, the learned defence counsel contends that the police had the First Information from the Corporator and proceeded to scene of offence. Though PW1 deposed in his chief examination he gave Ex.P1 report to Police, in the cross examination, it is elicited from him that Ex.P1 was drafted by the police and he signed on it. Therefore, the learned defence counsel 16
Sessions Case No.60/2017 Dated 10.06.2022
contends that Ex.P1 is prepared by police after receipt of information from the Corporator.
28.Even if Ex.P1 is not considered as F.I.R. the evidence of
PW5 that he has seen the dead body in the first instance and police came to the scene of offence house is remained unchallenged as
PW5 has not at all cross examined by the defence. Therefore, there is no dispute with regard to the scene of offence. It may be noted that though he deposed that he know the deceased and as per Ex.P2 statement before the police, he is residing near the said locality and he knows deceased and A1 were residing in the said scene of offence house, but he has not supported his version during his cross examination. He turned hostile and stated that he does not know accused 1 and 2. Though he deposed in the chief examination itself that he worked as a mason for construction of compound wall of the house of deceased at Satyanarayanapuram i.e., scene of offence house on 27th/28th March, 2016 and on 30.03.2016 at about 4-00 or 4-30 p.m., he went to the said house to collect his wages, he says that he does not know who are residing in the said house. If his evidence in chief examination is taken into consideration he constructed the compound wall of the scene of offence house just prior to the date of incident, but deposing that he does not know who are residing in the said house itself speaks that he does not want to speak the truth.
29.The learned defence counsel in the written arguments by referring to the evidence of PW1 wherein it is elicited, by that time they went to the scene of offence house, the house was locked from outside and the key was found from two feet away from the door and the police noticed the key and opened the door, contends that but
PW14 who initially commenced the investigation and visited the scene of offence testified during cross examination that by that time, he went to the scene of offence, the said house was opened.
Further in Ex.P12 rough sketch item No.3 is shown as pooj room and no items were shown in the said pooja room and in the kitchen also no kitchen items were depicted. PW1 during cross examination gave an evasive reply to a suggestion that he does not know that the 17
Sessions Case No.60/2017 Dated 10.06.2022
deceased was using the said house for the purpose of drinking and gambling along with his friends. By referring to this evidence, the learned defence counsel urged that the prosecution failed to prove the scene of offence house is an abandoned or dwelling house.
30.It may be a fact that PW14 testified that by that time, he reached the scene of offence house, it was opened, but at the same time, it cannot be ignored he categorically deposed PW1 and other police staff were also there. PW14 is not the first person who reached the scene of offence. Therefore, I do not find any inconsistency or discrepancy between the evidence of PW1 and
PW14 in this regard. So far as not finding any pooja items in the pooja room is concerned it will not effect the case of the prosecution and does not show it is an abandoned house. Admittedly, it is a newly constructed house and in some other portion construction is still going on and PW14 categorically deposed PW1 who is the relative of the deceased informed that it was pooja room. Therefore, he mentioned the same in Ex.P12 rough sketch. PW14 categorically deposed there are some small kitchen items in the kitchen room and MO6 Album of the scene of offence also shows there were some items in the kitchen. It is not possible to show each and every item found in the entire house in Ex.P12 rough sketch. Therefore, the non depicting the kitchen items in Ex.P12 does not weaken the case of the prosecution. PWs.1 and 2 categorically deposed that the deceased kept A1 in the said house and he used to visit her. It may be a fact that PW1 testified during cross examination he does not know that whether A1 went to her parents house three months prior to the death of the deceased. The suggestion itself proves that the deceased kept
A1 in the said house. Therefore, the burden shifts to the defence to prove that she shifted to her parents house three months prior to the death of deceased. But the defence has not adduced any evidence or nothing was elicited during the cross examination of Prosecution witnesses in this regard. On the other hand, the evidence of PW2 that A1 along with her children came and residing in the scene of offence house and his father is also used to reside along with them in the said house is remained unchallenged. Atleast there was no 18
Sessions Case No.60/2017 Dated 10.06.2022
suggestion denying the same. Moreover, PW4 the mason who constructed the scene of offence house categorically deposed that the deceased and A1 are residing in the said house. He was not at all cross examined by the defence and thus his evidence remained unchallenged proves that A1 was residing in the said house. Apart from that, it is suggested to PW13 the wife of the deceased that A1 demanded the repayment of the debt from the deceased and told that if the said amount is paid they will vacate the house. Of course the same was denied by her. This suggestion itself establishing that A1 was residing in the scene of offence house and disputes arose between herself and the deceased with regard to money. Moreover, the defence itself elicited from PWs.1 and 2 that due to illegal relationship of the deceased with A1, disputes arose between the deceased and his wife i.e., PW13. This also establishes the case of the prosecution that there were illicit intimacy between the deceased and A1 and the suggestion given to PW13 shows financial disputes arose between deceased and A1 which proves motive and the unchallenged evidence of PW4 and the suggestion given by the defence to PW13 referred to supra shows that A1 was residing in the scene of offence house. Therefore, I do not find any force in the contention of the learned defence counsel that the prosecution failed to prove whether the house is an abandoned house or dwelling house.
31.It may be a fact that PW13 the wife of the deceased had not rushed to the scene of offence, but she categorically deposed as no lady went to the scene of offence she also did not go. Simply because PW13 the wife did not rush to the scene of offence house after receipt of information, the case of the prosecution cannot be doubted in view of the explanation given by her. Moreover, when the dead body is at the scene of offence in a pool of blood by killing in a gruesome manner and when it was not shifted to either hospital. It may be fact that either PW14 or PW15 did not examine PW13 the wife of the deceased during investigation. But the law is well settled due to infirmities or lapses on the part of the Investigation Officer, the entire case of the prosecution cannot be brushed aside and the 19
Sessions Case No.60/2017 Dated 10.06.2022
evidence has to be appreciated independently irrespective of infirmities. The learned defence counsel further argued that the
Investigating Officer PW15 has not reconstructed the scene on 5.4.2016 the clues team and sniffer dogs were not pressed into service in the scene of offence by PW14 to track the accused. The dog might have shown MO4 iron rod. With regard to not pressing into service the clues team, PW14 gave an explanation though they informed clues team they were busy elsewhere, therefore, they could not come and further stated as there was sufficient evidence about the culprits he did not find necessity to call for sniffer dogs.
32. The learned defence counsel further pointed out that though the evidence of PW5 shows there were two wheeler parked in front of the scene of offence house, the vehicle was not seized and the Investigating Officer has not find out who was the owner of the vehicle to show the involvement of the said owner in the offence. But I do not find any force in the said contention because there was no dispute that the said vehicle belongs to the deceased.
33.As already discussed, at the cost of repetition, the unchallenged evidence of PW4 and the suggestion given to PW13 establishes A1 was residing in the said house and she has not vacated the house even though it was sold by PW13 demanding to repay the debt to vacate the house and when she was residing in the said house and the deceased was killed in the said house she has to explain how he was killed. The evidence of PW15 corroborated by the evidence of PW7 shows on 5.4.2016 in pursuance of the confession made under Ex.P5 lead by A1, MO4 iron rod was seized under Ex.P6. It may be a fact that PW7 is the person who was called by PW14 as a mediator for scene observation report. But it will not create any suspicion with regard to seizure of MO4 under Ex.P6 in pursuance of confession under Ex.P5 as PW15 took up investigation from PW14. At this juncture it is apposite to refer to the contention of the learned defence counsel that it is stated by A1 during Sec.313
Cr.P.C. examination that the Inspector brought her on 3.4.2016 from her parents house to Nellore rural police station and PW1 also testified he has seen A1 on 3.4.2016 at Nellore rural Police Station.
20
Sessions Case No.60/2017 Dated 10.06.2022
34.It may be noted that it is not the case of the prosecution that A1 was arrested on 3.4.2016 and even PW15 was not at all cross examined that she was arrested or taken into custody on 3.4.2016.
Simply because PW1 stated that he saw A1 at Police Station on 3.4.2016 when investigation is pending and the police may interrogate several people as already stated PW15 is not cross examined on the lines that A1 was taken into custody on 3.4.2016.
Moreover the record shows that on 5.4.2016 when A1 and A2 were produced before the IV Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nellore along with the remand report, they did not make any complaint that
A1 was in custody of Rural Police from 3.4.2016.
35. In the foregoing discussion establishes that A1 was residing in the scene of offence house, but she has not explained how the deceased died in the said house. On the other hand, MO4 is recovered in pursuance of the confession of A1 and the evidence of
PW8 shows there may be chances of the injuries received by the deceased as mentioned in Ex.P7 Post-mortem report are possible with material objects shown to him i.e., pestle and iron pipe (MO1 and
MO4). Ex.P13 R.F.S.L. report shows items 1 to 4, 6 to 9 except item
No.5/control marble floor piece were containing human blood which includes MO1 and MO4. No doubt in Ex.P12 rough sketch the pestle was not depicted. But PWs.1 to 3 who rushed to the scene of offence soon after receipt of information deposed that they found the pestle at the scene of offence near the dead body. The scene observation report also discloses the same. Not only that MO6 Album containing the photographs of the scene of offence also shows the pestle near the scene of offence. Thus, though there is no eye witnesses, there are no missing links in the circumstantial evidence as the prosecution established A1 was residing in the scene of offence house where the deceased was found killed that in pursuance of the confession of A1,
MO4 is recovered containing human blood which is used for killing the deceased and hence, the prosecution established the guilt of the accused that A1 killed the deceased.
21
Sessions Case No.60/2017 Dated 10.06.2022
36.However, there is no cogent evidence to prove the involvement of A2 that it is A2 who used the pestle which is another weapon used for killing the deceased which is also containing human blood. Hence, in the light of my foregoing discussion, I found that the prosecution established the guilt of the accused No.1 for the offence under Sec.302 IPC and she is convicted under Sec.235(2) Cr.P.C.
However, the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of A2 and he is acquitted under Sec.235(1) Cr.P.C.
POINT No.2:
37.In the result, the accused No.1 is found guilty for the charge under Sec.302 of IPC and accordingly, she is convicted under
Sec.235(2) of Cr.P.C. However, the accused No.2 is found not guilty for the said charge and he is acquitted under sec.235(1) Cr.P.C.
Dictated to the Stenographer Grade II, transcribed and typed by
her, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 10 th day of June, 2022.
Sd/- Smt. M.Madhuri,
V ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,
(FAC) III ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,
NELLORE.
38.Accused No.1 and 2 present. When accused No.1 is questioned on the quantum of sentence that can be imposed under
Section 302 of I.P.C., the accused No.1 submitted that she has two children and there are no other person to look after them.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case that it is a case of gruesome murder of one person, there appears no deserving circumstances to show any lenient and mercy view while imposing the punishment against the culprit.
An offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. shall be punishable with either death or imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine. As can be seen from the nature of the offence committed by the accused and the circumstances, under which, she committed the same, it appears to this Court that this is not a rarest of rare case to impose a harsh punishment.
22
Sessions Case No.60/2017 Dated 10.06.2022
In the result, the accused No.1 is found guilty for the offence punishable under Sec.302 IPC and accordingly, she is convicted under Sec.235(2) of Cr.P.C., and sentenced to undergo for life imprisonment and also to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 (six) months.
However, the accused No.2 is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sec.302 r/w 34 IPC and he is acquitted under
Sec.235(1) Cr.P.C. and directed to execute a self bond for
Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) under Section 437-A Cr.P.C.
to appear before the Appellate Court if any appeal is preferred.
The remand period of accused No.1 from 05.04.2016 to 12.07.2016 is directed to be set off against the sentence imposed above under Sec.428 of Cr.P.C. M.Os.1 to 5 and 7 to 9 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. MO6 being Album of photographs with CD shall be kept in the record.
Forward the material objects marked as M.Os.1 to 5 and 7 to 9 in C.P.R.No.3/2020 to committal court i.e.,IV Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nellore for carrying out order of disposal of case property after the expiry of appeal time.
The accused No.1 informed that she has got right of appeal against the present judgment.
A copy of judgment is provided to the accused at free of cost.
Send copy of Judgment to D.L.S.A., Nellore.
Typed to my direct dictation by the Stenographer Grade II, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 10 th day of June, 2022.
Sd/- Smt. M.Madhuri,
V Addl. District & Sessions Judge,
(FAC) III ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,
NELLORE.
23
Sessions Case No.60/2017 Dated 10.06.2022
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE
P.W1: K. Gopal ReddyDW1: Shaik Iliyaz.
P.W2: B.Manish Reddy P.W3: P.Laksha Reddy P.W4: P.Hazarath Reddy P.W5: T. Anjaneyulu P.W6: V.Suresh P.W7: K.Prabhakar Reddy P.W8: Dr. Z.Sasikanth P.W9: P.Narayana Reddy P.W10: G.V.Subrahmanyam P.W11: D.Ramesh Babu P.W12: R.Narasimha Rao P.W13: B.Sunanda P.W14: Y.Srinivasa Rao P.W15: O.Durga Prasad Rao.
DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION
Ex.P1 : Report given by PW1 to police Ex.P2 : Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW5 Ex.P3 : Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW6. Ex.P4 : Scene observation report. Ex.P5 : Confession statement of accused. Ex.P6 : Seizure mahazar of MO4. Ex.P7 : Post-mortem certificate. Ex.P8 : Inquest report. Ex.P9 : Extra judicial confession. Ex.P10: Original F.I.R. Ex.P11: Certified copy of Sale deed, dated 21.07.2015. Ex.P12: Rough sketch of the scene of offence. Ex.P13: R.F.S.L. report.
DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE DEFENCE
Ex.D1 : Endorsement of R.D.O., Nellore, dt.20.01.2020 with regard to declaration of public holiday on 05.04.2016.
Ex.D2 : Pen drive. Ex.D3 : Memory card. Ex.D4: Conversation recorded in writing from Exs.D2 and D3. Ex.D5 : Certificate of affidavit form of DW1 stating that DW1 recorded the conversion in between V.R.O. and Nandam Venkata Ramanaiah.
24
Sessions Case No.60/2017 Dated 10.06.2022
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED
MO1: Pestle. MO2: Pillow covers. MO3: Two marble bits. MO4: Iron pipe. MO5: Blood stained red colour with red, black orange, light green colour stripes designed rug.
MO6: Album of photographs 26 in number along with C.D.
MO7: Blue colour with white colour dots full hands shirt.
MO8: Navy blue jeans pant with “sparky” label.
MO9: Black colour with yellow and white colours designed cut drawer.
M.Os. MARKED FOR DEFENCE.
-NIL-
Sd/- Smt. M.M.,
V Addl. S.J.
(FAC) III A.D & S.J.
Copies Submitted To:
1. The Hon’ble Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi.
2. The Prl. District Court, SPSR Nellore District.
Copies To:
3. The Dist. Collector & Magistrate, Nellore Dist.,
4. The Dist. Superintendent of Police, Nellore Dist.,
5. The Addl. P.P., III A.D.J. Court, Nellore.
6. The IV Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nellore,
7. Office Copy.
//True Copy//