Smt. M.Padmaja

1 of 29 SC No.296 OF 2022.

IN THE COURT OF II-ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

HANUMAKONDA.

On Tuesday, the 7th day of February, 2023.

PRESENT: SMT. M.PADMAJA,

II-Addl. Sessions Judge, Hanumakonda.

SESSIONS CASE NO. 2 96 OF 2022

(PRC No.87 of 2020 on the file of VI-Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal in Crime No. 224/2020 of Police Station, Subedari )

1.Name and description of the : The State of Telangana through complainantthe Inspector of Police, Subedari

2.Name of the accused:: Konda Ramesh, S/o Purushotham, Age: 30 years, Caste: Padmashali, Occu: Labour , R/o Mutharam Village of Palakurthy Mandal, Jangoan District

3.Prosecution is conducted by: Additional Public Prosecutor.

4.Accused is defended by: Sri V.Venkateshwar Rao, Advocate.

5.Offences charged: Under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code.

6.Plea of the accused: Pleaded not guilty.

7.Finding of the Court: Found guilty.

8.Sentence or Order: IN THE RESULT, Accused is found guilty for the offence under section 302 of IPC and he is convicted under section235(2) Cr.P.Cwith an IMPRISONMENT FOR LIFE and fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred only) in default he has to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. The remand period undergone by the accused from 09.05.2020 to 11.01.2021 and from 07.05.2022 to till date shall be computed while calculating sentence of life imprisonment. Mos 1 to 4 shall be destroyed after the lapse of appeal time.

2 of 29 SC No.296 OF 2022.

This Sessions Case is coming on 2023 before me for final hearing in the presence of Additional Public Prosecutor for the State/complainant and ofSri V.Venkateshwar Rao, Advocate for the Accused and after hearing the arguments of both sides and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, this Court delivered the following:

:: J U D G M E N T ::

1. Accused is brought before this Court to face trial for the offence punishable U/sec. 302 of IPC.

THE CASE OF THE PROSECUTION2. :

(i)That the accused/Konda Ramesh, the deceased/Nagaraju and eye witnesses Shaik Saleem, Sk. Nagole Meera and Aroju Venkateshwarlu are all colleagues, They are all daily wage workers. This is a case of brutal murder of the deceased/Nagaraju by accused.

(ii)According to the prosecution case, the accused had kicked the deceased from the 3rd floor of an under construction building complex of

KUDA, Warangal (here in after referring it as scene of offence) to ground floor keeping enmity that the deceased refused to give money to accused for consuming alcohol. As such, the deceased fell down on the ground floor and died on the spot.

(iii)The complainant is VRO, Hanumakonda. He lodged a report to police stating that on 06.05.2020, he received an information that a dead body of a person was lying on the ground floor of scene of offence,

Immediately, he rushed there and found dead body of the deceased lying on the ground floor, besides stair case. He enquired about the identity of dead body with Shaik Saleem, Nagole Meera and A.

Venkateshwarlu, who were in scene and came to know that they are working as labours, due to lock down they are temporarily residing in the scene of offence “under construction building”. That on said day, the 3 of 29 SC No.296 OF 2022.

accused requested deceased Nagaraju many times to give money for purchasing liquor, but the deceased refused to give. After some time, accused alone went out side and came back in drunken condition and at about 6 p.m, the accused on observing that deceased was getting down from by stairs, he shouted that he will take away the money from deceased even by killing him to have alcohol. Saying so, accused kicked the deceased. As such, the deceased fell down to the ground floor and died instantaneously.

iv) Basing on the complaint of VRO, a case was registered in Crime

N0.224/2020 for the offence punishable U/Sec. 302 of the IPC. During the course of investigation, the Investigation Officer (LW17) examined complainant, visited the scene of offence with a photographer (LW6), inspected the scene of offence minutely, prepared Crime Details Form in the presence of two mediators namely LW11/Thouti Shyamsunder and

LW12/Sd Gouse Pasha, He got photographed the scene of offence and dead body of deceased with the help of above said photographer and seized blood stained sand, small stones and controlled earth from the scene of offence under the cover of panchanama. As it was late night, he could not proceed with the case and got shifted the corpse to mortuary of the MGM Hospital, Warangal for safe custody. Thereafter, he flashed the radio message and sent notices to all the Station Houses Officers of

Telangana and A.P. He got verified with face recognize system in TS corpse, but no matches were found. He got published a news in electronic media to trace out the identity of the face of deceased. On 07.05.2020, the Investigating Officer (LW17) visited MGM Hospital along with said photographer and again photographed the corpse. He examined LW2 to

LW6 (Shaik Saleem, Sk.Nagulmiya, Alloju Venkateshwarlu, Varikoppula

Babu and Jannu Bixapathi) and recorded their statements. He 4 of 29 SC No.296 OF 2022.

conducted inquest over the dead of deceased in the presence of

LW10/Madishetty Sarvesham and LW11/Thouti Shyam Sunder and seized cash of Rs.4,000/- from the clothes of deceased and seized the same. Then, he forwarded the dead body to KMC, Warangal for postmortem examination. Later the corpse (dead body) was preserved in the mortuary room for 72 hours for observation to get identity of deceased. Meanwhile, the investigation officer obtained finger prints of deceased and sent them to FBB Unit, Warangal to establish the identity of the deceased.

(v)On 09.05.2020, the Investigation Officer along with his team rushed to public garden, Hanamkonda and apprehended accused. Then, he secured the presence of of LW12/Sd.Gouse Pasha and LW13/Lonka

Harish and in their presence, he enquried accused. On enquiry, accused confessed the offence and hence he recorded his confession, effected his arrest and produced him before the court for remand.

vi) On 10.05.2020, the investigation officer has deputed S.Venugopal SI of Police, PS Subedari, PC 3882 of PS Subedari to find out the full details of the unidentified dead body including his blood relatives, but they could not succeed. He got recorded statements of Complainant and eye witnesses U/Sec.164 Cr.P.C, visited MGM mortuary room and got conducted autopsy through LW14/Dr. Md.Rajamalik Khan. The doctor who conducted autopsy opined that the death of deceased was caused due to head injury. They also preserved bone sample and clothes of deceased and forwarded them to the Director TS FSL, Hyderabad for DNA finger print examination. With the help of the Commissioner GWMC, through LW7 to LW9 (Bommala Raja Reddy, Chennuri Shyamraj and

Kodakandla Suman), the investigating officer conducted funeral of 5 of 29 SC No.296 OF 2022.

deceased by following the procedure and used the cash of Rs.4,000/-, which belongs to deceased.

(vii)Later the Investigation Officer examined and recorded the statements of LW6 to 9 (Jannu Bhixapathi, Bommala Raja Reddy,

Chennuri Shyamraj, Kodakandla Suman). On 16.05.2020, the investigation officer obtained authorization letter from the ACP,

Hanamkonda and deposited material objects items No.1 to 4 i.e., 1) blood stained sand with small stones, 2) controlled sand, 3). blood stained white color full shirt with light black checks and 4) sky blue color pant on which it was written FILA at RFSL, Warangal vide letter dated 16.05.2020 for examination and report. He had also sent collar bone of deceased to the Director TFSL, but the authorities returned the above material objects with a letter stating that “the case property is not accepted as there is no claimant persons because of the unknown/missing identity and that the case property may be submitted as and when the claimant comes for identification of unknown dead body”. On 24.07.2020, the Scientific

Officer of RFSL analyzed items No.1 to 4 and opined that human blood is detected on items No.1,3 and 4, but their blood group could not be determined and blood is not detected on item No.2.

(viii)During the course of investigation, the Investigation Officer has ascertained that accused murdered deceased by kicking him from third floor of the scene of offence/under construction building as said deceased refused to give his money to accused to purchase liquor and it was witnessed by Lws.2 to LW5 (Shaik Saleem, Sk.Nagulmiya, Alloju

Venkateshwarlu and Varikoppula Babu). After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet accordingly.

3.The learned VI Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Warangal had taken cognizance of the offence as punishable under 6 of 29 SC No.296 OF 2022.

Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against accused and the case was registered as P.R.C. No.68 of 2021 issued summons to accused person.

4.On receipt of the summons, accused appeared before the learned

Committal Magistrate. Then the copies of all documents were furnished to him under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. Later the learned Magistrate has committed the above said P.R.C., to the Hon’ble Principal Sessions Court,

Warangal as the offence under Sections 302 of IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions.

5.After receiving the case file, the Hon’ble Principal Sessions Court,

Warangal registered the case as Sessions Case No. 296 of 2022 and made over to this Court for disposal according to law.

6.On receipt of the case record, this Court has issued summons to accused. On receipt of summons, the accused appeared before this Court and engaged a counsel.

7.Later, upon hearing the learned counsel for accused and Public

Prosecutor, this Court has framed the charge under Section 302 of the

Indian Penal Code against accused. The same was read over and explained to him in Telugu language, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

8.After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., by explaining the incriminating evidence appearing against him, for which he denied, but reported no defence evidence.

9.Heard arguments of both sides. Perused the entire material record.

10. Now the point for consideration is:

“Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt?” 7 of 29 SC No.296 OF 2022.

11.In order to establish the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined Pws.1 to 10 and got produced Ex.P1 to P17 and marked MO.1 to MO.4. The accused did not adduce any evidence. For the sake of better adjudication, the evidence of prosecution witnesses is reiterated here in brief.

12.PW1 A. Rakesh is Defacto Complainant. He deposed that on 06- 05-2020 at about 7 p.m, while he was proceeding near Hanamkonda New

Bus Stand near KUDA complex, he saw public gathered near KUDA complex. He went there and found dead body of deceased lying on the ground floor near the steps. He enquired Shaik Saleem, Nagole Meera and Alloju Venkateshwarlu, who were present at the scene of offence.

They informed him about the murder of deceased that was committed by accused Ramesh and hence he went to Subedari PS and lodged a report/ in Ex.P1.

13. PW2 SK Nagul Mira, is an eye witness to the incident. According to him, about two years back before lock down period, he along with LW2 (Sk.Saleem), LW4(Alloju Venkateshwarlu) and PW3 and few others stayed in Kakatiya Lodge. During the lock down period, said lodge was closed and there was no transportation to go to their villages. Finally, they got an accommodation in old dilapidated building beside Kakatiya Lodge,

Hanumakonda. He along with LW2, 4 and 5 (Sk.Saleem, Alloju

Venkateshwarlu and Varikopula Babu), deceased and accused stayed there for some period. They are all masons. One or two months after lock down was lifted, wine shops were opened for sale on that day. There was some quarrel between accused and deceased regarding money. The accused requested deceased to provide liquor with his money, for which deceased/Nagaraju refused. In this regard, accused challenged that he will get money at any cost from Nagaraju and challenged that he will kill 8 of 29 SC No.296 OF 2022.

him. Later, accused went to ground floor for consuming alcohol. At about 6 p.m. he came in drunken condition to 3rd floor, where they were residing. When Nagaraju was stepping down from stair case to go to ground floor, accused came from his back side and kicked him on his back. As such, Nagaraju had fallen down into the ground floor and died on the spot. He sustained head injury and multiple injuries all over his body. It was witnessed by him, LW2(Sk.Saleem), LW4(A.Venkateshwarlu) and PW3. On seeing the incident, they all came down to ground floor and accused ran away from the scene soon after the incident. The accused is responsible for death of deceased/Nagaraju. He gave statement U/Sec. 164 Cr.P.C before learned JFCM for Excise Offences,

Warangal and his signature is marked as Ex.P2.

14.PW3/Varikopula Babu is also a co-worker of accused and deceased.

He is one of the eye witnesses to the incident. He also stays with deceased and accused in the scene of offence building. He deposed in the same lines of PW2. According to his version, on 06.05.2020, he along with LW2(Sk.Saleem), LW4(A.Venkateshwarlu), PW2, deceased and accused were in the 3rd floor of scene of offence. On that day, wine shops were opened. There was some quarrel between accused and deceased regarding money . Accused requested deceased/Nagaraju to provide liquor with his money as deceased is having sufficient amounts in his hands, for which deceased refused. In this regard, accused challenged that he will get money at any cost from Nagaraju/ deceased even by killing him. Later accused went out to consume alcohol. At about 5.30 p.m, he returned to 3rd floor in drunken condition, where they were residing, the accused and deceased quarreled with each other for half an hour. When the deceased was stepping down from stair case to go to ground floor, the accused from his back side kicked Nagaraju on his 9 of 29 SC No.296 OF 2022.

back. As such he had fallen down into the ground floor and died on the spot.

15.PW4/B.Raja Reddy is a Municipal Health Officer. He deposed that as per the instructions of the Municipal Commissioner, he instructed

LW8/Chennuri Shyamraj and LW9/Kondakandla Suman to conduct funeral of the unknown dead body/ deceased Nagaraju and accordingly they had conducted.

16.PW5/J.Bixapathi is photographer. He supported the prosecution case and deposed that on 06.05.2020 at about 10 p.m, on the request of

SHO, PS Subedari, he went to KUDA complex building where he found dead body of a male person and photographed the same. On the next day morning also, he went to mortuary room at the MGM Hospital and again took photographs of same dead body. After 4 days, during cremation of said dead body also, he took photographs and handed over the photos with CDs to police. Ex.P5 is 21 photographs with 2 CDs.

Ex.P6 is two receipts dated 7.5.2020 and 11.5.2020 for Rs.500/- and

Rs.200/- respectively issued by photographer for the amounts paid by police.

17.PW6/Shyam Raju is the Sanitory Inspector in GWMC, Warangal. He deposed that on 11.05.2020 in the evening hours on the instructions of his Senior Officer, he along with other staff conducted funeral of male person’s dead body at Pothana Burial Ground, Warangal. The funeral was conducted in the presence of Subedari police. During cross- examination, he deposed that there were no written instructions from the

MHO to conduct funeral of said deceased dead body. Though there was no written instructions from the MHO, his evidence need not be brushed aside as PW4 Municipal Health Officer clearly deposed that on the 10 of 29 SC No.296 OF 2022.

instructions of the Commissioner, he directed Shyam Raju and Suman to conduct funeral of said unknown dead body i.e, deceased Nagaraju.

18.PW7/Madishetty Sarvesham is witness for the Scene of Offence cum Seizure Panchanama, Rough Sketch and Inquest panchanama respectively. He supported the prosecution case to the extent of witnessing two panchanamas conducted on 06.05.2020 regarding the murder case of deceased and seizure panchanama of blood stained sand, stones, control sand from the scene of offence. Further he deposed that on the next day morning, police again called him to the MGM mortuary room where they conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased/Nagaraju and the police had seized clothes of deceased i.e.,

MO.1, MO.2 MO3 and MO4. Ex.P7 is inquest. Ex.P8 is his signature on said panchanama. Ex.P8 is Crime details form. He opined that the cause of death of deceased is unnatural death. He might be murdered by some body. During cross examination, he deposed that he did not receive any written summons from police to act as a witness to the panchanamas.

He agreed that he did not sign on map enclosed Ex.P7. He agreed that he did not sign on each paper of Ex.P8. But he signed in Column 16 in page

4. He agreed that he does not know the contents of Ex.P8 (CDF with map). He is the witness for scene of offence, seizure panchanama and for inquest panchanama. His evidence is helpful to the extent of observation of scene, seizure of material objects and inquest. Though, he admitted that he does not know the contents of Ex.P8, his evidence cannot be brush aside. Because, in his chief examination he clearly deposed that police conducted scene of offence panchanama, seized MO.1 to MO.4 and drafted map in his presence amd these aspects clearly establish the prosecution case about the conducting CDF, map and seizure of MO.1 to

MO.4.

11 of 29 SC No.296 OF 2022.

19.PW8/Donka Harish, is a witness for confession panchanama. He deposed that on 9.5.2020, between 10.00 to 10.15 a.m., when he along with LW12 Gouse Pasha were present in front side of public garden,

Hanamkonda, they were called by CI of Police, Subedari to turning point near Public Garden. Accordingly, they went there and by that time, accused was in the custody of CI of police and his team. On the instructions of CI of Police, he along with LW12 called accused separately from police and questioned accused about his apprehension. He revealed his name and confessed the commission of murder of deceased/ Nagaraju and the manner of murder in which he had committed. His signature on confession panchanama was marked. During cross examination, he deposed that he is residing near the premises of police station Subedari.

He admitted that exact place where the confession was recorded was not mentioned in panchanama. The alleged confession of accused is not admissible in evidence as it did not lead to any discovery/seizure of any material object and because it was given when accused was in police custody.

20.PW9/Dr. Mohd Raza Ali khan deposed that on 11.5.2020, on receipt of requisition from PS Subedari, he conducted PME over the dead body of deceased/Nagaraju @ Modi and issued PME Report. In his opinion, the cause of death of deceased was due to head injury. He noted ante mortem injuries in page No. 5 at column No.11 of Ex.P10 and the age of injuries are five days prior to his examination. During cross- examination, he admitted that five days after his death, the dead body of deceased was subjected to PME. Since this is a case of unidentified dead body, the police waited for 4 days to trace out his blood relatives and their details. Hence such delay is not fatal to this case. He opined that it is 12 of 29 SC No.296 OF 2022.

possible to sustain head injury, if said person falls from considerable height on hard surface.

21.PW10/Ch. Ajay is the Investigation Officer. He deposed about receiving of Ex.P1 report from PW1, registration of case in crime No.

224/2020 U/Sec. 302 of IPC and issuing Ex.P11 FIR, examination and recording the statements of PW1, visiting of scene of offence and observing the dead body of the deceased. He further deposed that he got photographed the scene of offence in the presence of PW7 and

LW11(Thouti Shyamsunder), conducted CDF and seized MO.3 and MO.4 and shifted the dead body to the MGM Hospital and issued look out notice of deceased. He also published a news item in local news paper and electronic media about the unknown dead body. Again on 07.05.2021, he visited Govt. Mortuary room and got photographed the dead body of deceased and conducted inquest panchanama in the presence of above two mediators and seized MO.1 and MO.2 (clothes of the deceased) and seized cash of Rs.4,000/- from his pocket. The amount so seized from the clothes of the deceased was spent towards funeral expenses. He examined and recorded the statements of PW2, PW3, PW5,

LW2 and LW4. He further deposed that since dead body was not identified, he preserved the dead body in freezer in the MGM Hospital for 74 hours. On 09.05.2020, at about 10 a.m., on receipt of reliable information he apprehended accused at Public Gardens, Hanamkonda and when he was about to confess, he secured the presence of PW8 and

LW12/Sd. Ghouse Pasha and in their presence he recorded confession statement of accused in the form of panchanama and effected his arrest.

Then, he produced him before concerned learned Magistrate. On 10.05.2020, he deputed one SI for identifying the relatives of the deceased, but their efforts did not succeed. On 11.05.2020, he filed 13 of 29 SC No.296 OF 2022.

request before the Magistrate for recording of 164 Cr.P.C statements of

PW1 to PW3, LW2/ Shaik Saleem and LW4/Alloju Venkateshwarlu. PW2 and PW3 gave statements before the concerned Magistrate as in Ex.P2 and P3. PW1, LW2/Shaik Saleem and LW.4/ Alloju Venkateshwarlu stated before the concerned Magistrate as in Ex.P12 to PW14.

Accordingly, the statements of PW1 to PW3 and LW2 were recorded on the same day. He filed requisition before PW9 for conducting postmortem examination over the dead body of deceased with a request to preserve collar bone of the deceased and after completion of PME, he collected the

PME Report. He forwarded MOs to RFSL Warangal for analysis. He had also sent collar bone of deceased to FSL, Hyderabad and the FSL

Authorities had returned the collar bone with a letter dated 10.06.2020 (Ex.P17) stating that they cannot accept the case property as there is no claimant person for the unknown missing dead body. After collecting the FSL Report, report of the Professor Forensic Medicine and PME report, he filed charge sheet.

22.With this evidence, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor argued that the prosecution has established the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt and hence prayed to convict the accused as per law.

Whereas the learned defense counsel argued that the death of deceased is not a homicide, but it was an accident that the alleged eye witnesses are planted witnesses and there was an abnormal delay in conducting PME and hence he argued that the prosecution failed to establish the charge and hence he prayed to acquit the accused.

23.This is a case of brutal murder of unknown male person by name

Nagaraju @ Modi. The prosecution alleged that during lock down period, as there were no hotels, transportation, this accused along with deceased and few other labour people namely Pws 2, 3 and LW2/Shaik 14 of 29 SC No.296 OF 2022.

Saleem and LW.4/ Alloju Venkateshwarlu were all staying in the scene of offence ie., old dilapidated building in KUDA complex and they were attending coolie works. On the particular day, lock down was raised (may be partially), wine shops were opened, accused noticed money in the pocket of deceased and requested him many times, for which deceased had refused. In this regard, some quarrel had taken place between them.

The accused challenged him that at any cost he will take money from deceased even by killing him. This uttering of words shows the intention of accused in clear terms. Saying so, he went out side and returned by 5.30pm to the scene of offence. At about 6 p.m, on noticing deceased was getting down from 3rd floor, accused came to him and intentionally kicked him from his back side and as such, said Nagaraju fell down into the ground floor and died on the spot.

24.Pws 2 and 3 are the eye witnesses to the occurrence. They have supported the prosecution case in all material aspects including the involvement of accused in this case and the motive behind the murder.

They clearly deposed that when deceased refused to give his money to accused for purchasing liquor even after repeated requests, accused challenged that he will take his money even by killing him. On the same day at about 6 p.m, when the deceased was getting down from third floor, the accused who was in drunken condition intentionally came to him and uttered that he will take his money by killing him. Saying so, he kicked deceased from his back side. As such, the deceased fell down from third floor into ground floor and died. This was seen by all his colleagues.

25.Whereas the defense case is that there was no electricity in the scene of offence building and because of darkness, the deceased fell down from third floor accidentally and there is no scope for any one to 15 of 29 SC No.296 OF 2022.

see the incident. That the death of deceased is an accidental one and not a culpable homicide, not amounting to murder. During cross examination, the eye witnesses clearly deposed that at the time of incident, s there was no darkness in the scene of offence. As per the version of eye witnesses, after 6.30 p.m, only there will be darkness. The incident took place at 6 p.m. The court takes judicial notice that incident took place in hot summer in May, 2020. Hence, this court believes the version of eye witnesses that there was no darkness. Hence, the contention of defence side that there was darkness in the scene of offence at the time of incident and that there is no scope for Pws 2 and 3 and their colleagues to see the alleged incident is not sustainable.

26.It is further contention of the defense that due to enemity between accused and eye witnesses regarding alcohol, they became inimical and deposed falsehood. Both the witnesses ie PWs 2 and 3 (Sk.Nagul Mira and

Varikoppula Babu) denied this suggestion. Further they clearly deposed that occasionally and individually, they take alcohol once in a while and they never had disputes with accused. Hence this contention of defence that PW2 and PW3 are inimical towards accused is also not tenable.

Further, there is no other strong reason to show for enemity or interestedness of witnesses to depose falsehood. Hence, this court is of the considered opinion that they are reliable and their evidence is trustworthy. Hence it is proved that the death of deceased was a homicide, but not an accident.

27.Now it has to be decided whether the death of deceased is culpable homicide amounting to murder or not amounting to murder?

Sec. 299 of IPC defines Culpable Homicide. Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the 16 of 29 SC No.296 OF 2022.

knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide.

Explanation 1: A person who causes bodily injury, to another who is labouring under a disorder, disease or bodily infirmity and thereby accelerates the death of that other shall be deemed to have caused his death.

Explanation 2: Where death is caused by bodily injury, the person who causes such bodily injury shall be deemed to have caused the death although by resorting to proper remedies and skilful treatment the death might have been prevented.

Explanation 3: the causing of the death of a child in the mother’s womb is not homicide. But it may amount to culpable homicide to cause the death of a living child if any part of that child has been brought forth though the child may not have breathed or been completely born.

Sec. 300 defines M urder: Firstly, except in the cases hereinafter excepted culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death or

S econdly : If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused or

Thirdly:- If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death or

Fourthly:- If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.

17 of 29 SC No.296 OF 2022.

Exceptions:-

1. Culpable homicide is not murder:

(i) if the offender, whilst deprived of the power of self control by grave or sudden provocation causes death of the person who gave the provocation or causes the death of any person by mistake or accident or

(ii) That if the offender, in the exercise in good faith of the right of private defence of person or property, exceeds the powers given to him by law and causes the death of the person against whom he is exercising such right of defence without premeditation, without any intention of doing more harm than is necessary for the purpose of such defense.

(iii)If the offender being public servant or aiding public servant acting for the advancement of public justice exceeds the powers given to him by law, and causes death by doing an act which he, in good faith, believes to be lawful and necessary for the due discharge of his duty as such public servant without ill will towards the person whose death is caused.

(iv)If the offence is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offenders having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.

(v)when the person whose death is caused, being above the age of 18 years, suffers death or takes the risk of death with his own consent.

28.The learned counsel for defence orally argued that there was no enimity between accused and deceased and accused committed the act resulting death of deceased due to sudden fight and provocation, as he lost self control due to consumption of alocohol and filed decisions cited in the following paragraphs.

29.In KM Nanavati V. State of Maharashtra, the honourable Apex

Court had to decide whether the accused’s actions were covered by 18 of 29 SC No.296 OF 2022.

Exception 1 of Sec.300 of IPC. The following postulates pertaining to the grave and abrupt provocation were enunciated by the Court as follows:

i) The test of ‘grave and sudden’ provocation is whether a reasonable man from the same social group as the accused would be so outraged as to lose his self-control in the position in which the accused was put.

ii) In India words and gestures may give grave and sudden provocation to an accused, so bringing his act within the first exception to Sec.300 of the

IPC.

iii) In determining whether the succeeding action produced significant and immediate provocation for committing the crime, the mental context formed by the victim’s earlier act may be taken into account. iv) The fatal strike should be definitely connected to the effect of passion emanating from that provocation, not after the passion had cooled down due to the passage of time or otherwise allowing for premeditation and calculation.

30.The learned defense counsel further argued that the prosecution failed to establish the essential ingredients of Sec. 302 of IPC and relied upon following judgments:

i. KRISHNAMURTHY V. STATE REP BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

AIR 2022 SUPREME COURT 4250 where in it was held that:

accused allegedly assaulted deceased with wooden log on his head and co- accused persons assaulted him with iron pipe and wooden log. The

Medical evidence revealed that such injuries were possible with use of a wooden log. It was argued that alleged act was not committed with an intention to cause death. Though, High Court had recorded that act of accused was not done intentionally to cause death, accused was convicted under S. 302.. Later that Conviction was altered from S. 302 to

S.304 Part II.

ii. BUDHI SINGH V. STATE OF H.P, 2013 AIR SCW 457 Wherein 19 of 29 SC No.296 OF 2022.

accused was brother of deceased. Their relation was not inimical. The

Incident took place as deceased came drunk, started abusing and beating father. Accused on call of father for help coming out with small axe and assaulted deceased on head. It was observed that a son in our society would not tolerate that his father is insulted, much less assaulted. Offence held was committed on grave and sudden provocation..

The weapon though was used with a knowledge that it may cause grievous injury endangering life, but it was the commonly available weapon in houses of hilly area. The intention to kill cannot thus be inferred from use of an axe. There is no evidence showing that act was premeditated. The offence falls within ambit of exception 1 to S. 300.

Accused having caused injury with a knowledge that it may cause death is liable to be convicted under S. 304 Part I

The Hon’ble apex court held that “While applying this principle, the primary obligation of the Court is to examine from the point of view of a person of reasonable prudence, if there was such grave and sudden provocation so as to reasonably conclude that it was possible to commit the offence of culpable homicide, and as per the facts, in cited case, it was held, not a culpable homicide amounting to murder. An offence resulting from grave and sudden provocation would normally mean that a person placed in such circumstances could lose self control but only temporarily and that too in proximity to the time of provocation. The provocation could be an act or series of acts done by deceased to the accused resulting in inflicting of injury.”

Another test that is applied more often than not is that the behaviour of the assailant was that of a reasonable person. A fine distinction has

to be kept in mind between sudden and grave provocation resulting

in sudden and temporary loss of self control and the one which

20 of 29 SC No.296 OF 2022.

inspires an actual intention to kill. Such act should have been done

during the continuation of the state of mind. Once there is pre-

mediated act with an intention to kill, it will obviously fall beyond

the scope of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

iii. MANDLA RAMUDU V. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH REP. BY

THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF AP.2013 1 ALD (Crl.)

388; 2013 2 ALT (Crl) 31. In this case, there was an assault by knife causing death. On facts, it was answered there was no intention to commit murder. It was held that act of appellant in causing injury on left side of stomach of deceased would fall under S. 304 Part II, but not under S. 302. The conviction and sentence was accordingly modified. It was argued in the cited case that there is no intention on the part of A1 to cause the death of deceased, but it only occurred in a spur of moment, due to quarrel between women folk. As such, he cannot be convicted for the offence under Section 302 of IPC. In support of the contentions, learned advocate cited case he relied upon the decision reported in Jawahar Lal and another V. State of Punjab (AIR 1983 SC

284) wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as under.

“Sudden quarrel on spur of moment arising out of trivial reason on chance of meeting parties and when there is no premeditation or malice, a young man caused single blow by a knife on the chest of the victim causing his death. Intention to cause death or causing particular injury could not be imputed to him, but his knowledge that he was likely to cause injury that likely cause death could however, be inferred and hence the act of the accused will fall under Section 304-Part-I.” iv. Shaik Baba V. State 2000 Supreme (A.P) 959 whenthe witnesses PWs. 1 to 4 along with two others went to a hotel near the

Railway Station, Nizamabad and were having their meals the accused 21 of 29 SC No.296 OF 2022.

came there and demanded from the owner of the hotel some money. The owner was sitting on the counter of the hotel. The accused threatened the owner of the hotel and demanded money. At that time, the deceased stared at the accused and the accused got agitated on this and caught hold of the collar of the deceased. PWs. 1 to 4 tried to separate them, but in the process the accused stabbed deceased in the upper portion of the stomach and he fell down and died. Hon’ble apex court held that since there was no enmity between the accused and deceased, and whatever happened had happened at the spur of the moment; we do believe that the accused was not having any intention or premeditation to kill the deceased. Hence the conviction under section 302 IPC was converted to offence under section 304 part-II of IPC.

v. State of Karnataka V. Devaraju 2001 Supreme Karnataka 349,

The offence was committed in sudden and grave provocation and without premeditated mind. The injuries caused were not fatal. Hence it was held that Sec.302 of IPC is not attracted, but Sec.304 part II is applicable.

vi. Murugam and two others Vs. State 2000 Supreme Madras

580. The prosecution cannot gain strength from the weakness of the defence. In a criminal case, the accused is not bound by his pleading. It is open to the accused to prove his defence even from the admission made by the prosecution witnesses and the circumstances proved in the case, though it is ruled that even in murder case, the conviction may be based on the testimony of a single witness”

vii. State of Rajasthan V. Satyanarayan 1998 Supreme (SC) 256

The hon’ble Supreme Court held that “where the accused did not really intend to give the fatal blow to the victim with whom he had no enemity and dispute which occasioned the death was not such, which could have 22 of 29 SC No.296 OF 2022.

prompted accused to cause death, accused could be convicted only u/sec304 part-II of IPC”.

viii. State of Karnataka V. S.P Devaraju2001(4) Crimes 587. It was held that “accused had no hostility or quarrel with the deceased. Further, the injuries were not immediately fatal, due to the fact that the injured did not get immediate and requisite medical aid and hence he lost his life. This case also Sec.304 Part II of IPC is held as applicable” ix. State of Karnataka V. Devaraju 2002 Supreme(Kar) 119, The

honourable court discussed about the circumstantial evidence. This case

is not applicable to the facts of the present case. This Court is not convicting accused in the present case basing on circumstantial evidence only. There is direct evidence of eye witnesses here.

x. Felix Ambose D Souza V. State of Karnataka 2002 0 Supreme (SC)

952, “accused committed murder of his younger brother in grave and sudden provocation on a spur of movement. The conviction has to be recorded U/Sec.304 Part II of IPC”.

xi. Janyavula Rambabu V. State represented by Inspector of Police,

Jagannadareddygudem PS, West Godavari District 1992 Supreme

(AP) 221=1992 (1) APLJ 543. This is a case of criminal conspiracy and murder. After disposal of main case ended in acquittal against other offenders, a quash petition was filed by A1 in splitup case and it was allowed by hon’ble apex court observing that “no useful purpose will be served even if A1 is tried again, except wasting of precious time of the court”. This decision is also not applicable to the facts of the present.

case.

ith the above judgments, the learned defen W s e counsel argued that

there was no en e mity between the accused and deceased and the

alleged incident was occurred in sudden provocation and hence the

23 of 29 SC No.296 OF 2022.

accused is not having premeditated mind/ intention to kill deceased

Nagaraju.

31.I have Perused the evidence of eye witnesses carefully. It reveals that accused challenged deceased that even by killing him, he will take away his money. Then he went outside, consumed alcohol and returned to scene of offence building in a drunken condition. At about 6 p.m, he saw the deceased getting down from third floor. Accused went there and kicked deceased/Nagaraju from third floor from his back side. This act of accused clearly demonstrates that the accused is having premeditated mind and intention to kill the deceased. There is no whisper that the deceased gave any provocation to the accused. There was no sudden fight because of any provocation. Simply refusing to give money cannot provide accused to that extent. Hence, the contention of defence that the accused is not having any intention or knowledge to kill deceased and it occurred due to grave and sudden provocation is not tenable. Accordingly, this point is answered. The uttering of words of accused that he taken away money from Nagaraju (deceased) even by killing him shows the intention of accused.

32.The learned defense counsel further argued that there are material omissions in the evidence of PW2 and PW3, hence they are not reliable witnesses and their evidence cannot be looked into. During cross examination, it was suggested to PW2 that he omitted to state in his statement U/Sec.161 of Cr.P.C that on that day, some quarrel took place between accused and deceased regarding money and that accused requested deceased to provide liquor with his money as deceased was having sufficient amounts in his hand, for which the deceased refused.

Further it was suggested that PW2 omitted to mention in his statement

U/Sec. 161 Cr.P.C that when the deceased was stepping down from stair 24 of 29 SC No.296 OF 2022.

case to go to down floor, accused came from his back side and kicked him on his back. These two omissions are not found in his statement at all.

Further, they were not confronted with the Investigation Officer. Hence the court do not find any material omission in the evidence of PW2 and

PW3 as argued by the learned defense counsel.

33.Further every omission and discrepancy is not material and will not effect the prosecution case. It is clearly held in State of Andhra

Pradesh Vs. Konda Gopalam 2006(1)ALD Crl 279 SC. In the said case, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that “every discrepancy, contradiction in the statements of witnesses cannot be treated as fatal to the case of the prosecution and discrepancies which are not fatal to the case would not create any infirmity”.

34.Pws 1 to 3 and 8 who are material witnesses gave reliable and trustworthy version. Their evidence inspires the confidence of this Court.

The evidence of independent witnesses ie., PW2 and PW3 also corroborated with the version of the Investigation Officer. Though, they were cross examined by learned defecse counsel, no useful material could be elicited to support their defence.

The learned Addl Public Prosecutor filed following decisions:

(I) Shivaji Sahab Rao Vs. State date 28-07-2020

Sec.8 of the Indian Evidence Act: Motive, Preparation and previous or subsequent conduct. The hon’ble Supreme Court in Shivaji Genu Mohite

V. State of Maharashtra AIR 1973 SC 55 observed regarding importane of existence of motive in a criminal case as under:- “in case the prosecutionis not able to discover an impeling motive, that could not reflect upon the credibility of a witness proved to be a reliable eye witness.

Evidence as to motive would, no doubt , go a long way in cases wholly dependent on circumstantial evidence. Such evidence would form one of 25 of 29 SC No.296 OF 2022.

the links in the chain of circumstantial evidence in such a case. But that would not be so in cases where there are eye witnesses of credibility, even though in such cases if a motive is properly proved, such proof would strengthen the prosecution case. But that does not mean that if motive is not established, the evidence of an eye witness is rendered untrustworthy. Motive loses all its importance in a case where direct evidence of eye witnesses is available. Even if there may not be an apparent motive but if the evidence of the eye witnesses is clear and reliable, the absence or inadequacy of motive cannot stand in the way of conviction”. This decision is amply applicable to the facts of the present case. In this case though there is inadequacy of motive, since there are reliable eye witnesses for the murder motive lost its importance.

(ii) In Bablu Vs. State of Rajasthan 2006 13 SCC 116 the Hon’ble Apex

Court held that “the defence of drunkenness can be availed of only when intoxication produces such a condition as the accused loses the requisite intention for the offence and onus of proof about reason of intoxication, due to which the accused had become incable of having particular knowledge in forming the particular intention, is on the accused. In the absence of any evidence lead by the accused that he was in a highly inebriated condition and/ or he was such a drunk that he lost all the senses”. This case is also applicable in the present case. It is the version of the defence that accused was in drunken condition while the alleged murder was taken place. But he did not lead any evidence to show that he lost all the senses and that he was unable to take proper decision.

The testimony of prosecution witnesses is reliable, satisfactory and free from all traits. The evidence of prosecution witnesses clearly established that accused intentionally caused the death of the deceased by kicking him from third floor.

26 of 29 SC No.296 OF 2022.

Upon analysis of the ocular evidence and the circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence under section 302 of IPC. Accordingly, the charge is answered.

(Partly dictated to the Stenographer Gr.1 and partly typed to my dictation, after correction and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 7th day of February, 2022.)

II-Addl. Sessions Judge, Hanamkonda.

QUANTUM OF SENTENCE

34.Heard the accused. Accused when he was questioned as to the quantum of sentence to be imposed, he submitted that he did not commit this offence. Further he submitted that he is having old aged mother, wife and two children who are depending on him and that he is the sole bread winner of his family. Hence he prayed to show mercy and take lenient view. The offence proved against the accused is section 302 of IPC which is a serious offence and this court do not see any reason for taking lenient view.

35.The court while awarding sentence in any offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, should record reasons for not awarding death sentence and special reasons for imposing death sentence. Death sentence must be imposed only in extraordinary circumstances. At this stage I feel it is relevant to refer the judgment of hon’ble apex court in

Bachan Singh V. State of Punjab (1980) in which five judge bench of the

hon’ble Supreme Court reversed its earlier ruling in Rajendra Prasad and

held that the death penalty as an alterative punishment for murder, is not 27 of 29 SC No.296 OF 2022.

unreasonable and therefore is not in violation of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Indian Constitution. It also enunciated the principle of awarding the death penalty only in the “rarest of rare cases”.

36.In the present case,there was lockdown, people around the world are in distress and pandamic. There was no employment, no transcription facility to reach their families, specially coolies strucked in their work places. The accused committed murder of the deceased by kicking him from third floor when he refused to give amounts despite of his repeated requests. Hence, this court is of the considered opinion that the present case on hand is not a rarest of the rare case and there are no extraordinary mitigating circumstances to impose death sentence.

37. IN THE RESULT, Accused is found guilty for the offence under section 302 of IPC and he is convicted under section 235(2) Cr.P.C with an IMPRISONMENT FOR LIFE and fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five

Hundred only) in default he has to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. The remand period undergone by the accused from 09.05.2020 to 11.01.2021 and from 07.05.2022 to till date shall be computed while calculating sentence of life imprisonment. Mos 1 to 4 shall be destroyed after the lapse of appeal time.

(Partly dictated to the Stenographer Gr.1 and partly typed to my dictation, after correction and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 7th day of February, 2022.)

II-Addl. Sessions Judge, Hanamkonda.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: PW.1: A.Rakesh. PW.2: Sk. Nagul Mira.

28 of 29 SC No.296 OF 2022.

PW.3: V.Babu. PW.4: Dr. B.Raja Reddy. PW.5: J.Bikshapathi. PW.6: Ch.Shyam Raju. PW.7: M.Sarvesham. PW.8: L.Harish. PW.9: Dr. Mohd Razamalik Khan. PW.10: Ch. Ajay.

FOR DEFENCE:

-NONE-

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P.1: Complaint. Ex.P.2: Signature of PW.2 on 164 Cr.P.C recorded by learned JFCM for Excise, Warangal. Ex.P.3: Signature of PW.3 on 164 Cr.P.C recorded by learned JFCM for Excise, Warangal.

Ex.P.4: Attested Copy and office copy of requisition along with FIR in Cr.No.224/2020. Ex.P.5: Photographs with 2 CDs. Ex.P.6: Two Receipts dated 07.05.2020 and 11.05.2020 for Rs.500 and Rs. 200/- Ex.P.7: Inquest panchanama. Ex.P.7A: Signature of PW7 in the inquest panchanama. Ex.P.8: CDF with Map. Ex.P.9: Signature of PW8 on confession panchanama. Ex.P.10: Postmortem Examination Report. Ex.P.11: FIR. Ex.P.12 to 14 are statement of PW1, LW2 and LW4 stated before the concerned Magistrate. Ex.P.15: Report of Professor, Forensic Medicine and Toxicology, KMC, Warangal dated 31.05.2020. Ex.P.16: Letter dated 31.05.2020 sent to FSL under letter C.No.49/FSL/ACP-HNK/2020, Ex.P.17: FSL Authorites letter dated 10.06.2020.

FOR DEFENCE:

-NIL- 29 of 29 SC No.296 OF 2022.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED.

MO.1: Nigh pant of deceased. MO.2: Shirt of the deceased. MO.3: Controlled Sand. MO.4: Blood stained sand with small stones.

II ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,

HANUMAKONDA.

1 of 16 SC No.23 OF 2020/II Asst. Sessions Court, Hnk. Fair Copy

IN THE COURT OF II-ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

HANUMAKONDA.

Wednesday, this the 8th day of February, 2023

PRESENT: SMT. M.PADMAJA,

II-Addl. Sessions Judge, Hanumakonda.

SESSIONS CASE NO. 23 OF 2020

(PRC No.295/2019 on the file of VI Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal in Crime No. 124/2018 of Police Station, KUC)

1.Name and description of the: The State of Telangana through complainantthe Inspector of Police, PS. KUC

2.Name and description of the: A1: Bommakanti Raghupathi, S/o accused :Raja Poshaiah, Age: 36 years, Occu: Tiles Masthry, R/o Ambedkarnagar, Balasamudram, Hanamkonda, N/o Nizampally, Regonda Mandal.

A2: Bhukya @ Boda Laxmi, W/o Ravi, Age: 37 years, Caste: Lambada, Occu:Coolie,N/oGundagunde Thanda,UpparapaduVillage, Bayyaram, Khammam, now at R/o Goutham Nagar, Hanamkonda.

3.Prosecution conducted by: Additional Public Prosecutor.

4.Accused defended by: Sri M.Sahoder Reddy, Advocate.

5.Offences charged: Under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code.

6.Plea of the accused: Pleaded not guilty.

7.Finding of the Court: Found Not guilty.

8.Sentence or Order: IN THE RESULT, A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec. 302 of Indian Penal Code and they are acquitted under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused Nos. 1 and 2 shall remain in force for a period of (6) months as provided under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. M.Os.1 and 3 shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time. M.O.2 which was already given to its owner is made absolute after lapse of appeal time.

2 of 16 SC No.23 OF 2020/II Asst. Sessions Court, Hnk. Fair Copy

This Sessions Case is coming on 07.02.2023before me for final hearing in the presence of Additional Public Prosecutor for the State/complainant and of Sri M.Sahoder Reddy, Advocate for the Accused and after hearing the arguments of both sides and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, this Court delivered the following:

:: J U D G M E N T ::

1.The State represented by the Inspector of Police, PS, KUC

Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.

124/2018 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the

Indian Penal Code.

2. The case of the prosecution is that :

i).About ten years back, the deceased/Bhukya Ravi shifted his residence from his native village, Munigamadugu Narsimhulapet,

Mahabubabad District in search of coolie work. He was eking his livelihood by doing coolie works. He got acquaintance with Boda

Laxmi/A2 herein and developed illegal intimacy. On coming to know about their affair, the mother of the deceased/Bhukya Ravi who is the defacto-complainant herein had visited the house of A2 and admonished her and asked her to leave her son, but she did not do so and in turn, A2 lodged a false report before Bayyaram Police Station. In this regard a panchayath was conducted by caste elders, wherein A2 demanded cash of Rs.50,000/- to stop illegal intimacy with deceased.

Believing her words, mother of deceased had paid the agreed amount to A2. For some period, the deceased/ Bhukya Ravi stopped visiting the house of A2, after some time A2 again called the deceased/ Bhukya

Ravi through phone calls and hence he approached A2 and continued illegal intimacy. Vexed with the attitude of the deceased. She kept quite 3 of 16 SC No.23 OF 2020/II Asst. Sessions Court, Hnk. Fair Copy believing that one day he will return to home and was waiting. On the intervening night on 07.05.2018 she came to know through police that her son Ravi was found dead with injuries and as such she lodged a report alleging that A2 and others killed her son and requested to take action.

ii. Basing on her complaint, a case was registered in Crime No.

124/2018 U/Sec.302 of IPC. During the course of investigation, the investigating officer visited the scene of offence No.1, where he conducted scene observation panchanama and rough sketch in the form of CDF in the presence of LW9/V.Raju and LW10/V.Ramalingam and also conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased/

Bhukya Ravi in the presence of LW11/G.Babu Rao and LW12/B.Babu

Rao. He got photographed the scene of offence with the help of

LW8/B.Krishna. Then, he examined and recorded the statements of LW1 to LW8 in part-2 case diary and forwarded the dead body to postmortem examination. Subsequently, the investigation officer along with LW4/G.Naveen visited the scene of offence No.2 from where A1 brought the deceased to the house of A2, drafted rough sketch and incorporated the details in CDF No.2 in the presence of LW11/G.Babu

Rao and LW12/B.Babu Rao.

iii. On 15.05.2018, on receipt of credible information about the presence of A1 and A2 at Prakash Reddypet, Julywada, Hanamkonda,

LW17/C.Sateesh Babu, Inspector of Police secured two official mediators, proceeded to the above said house and apprehended them.

On enquiry, A1 and A2 confessed that they have committed the offence. A1 confessed that he is having illicit intimacy with A2 and the deceased/Bhukya Ravi became obstacle for them to continue it and 4 of 16 SC No.23 OF 2020/II Asst. Sessions Court, Hnk. Fair Copy hence they both decided to eliminate him. In pursuance of their plan,

A1 had taken the deceased/Bhukya Ravi to Prakashreddypet and beat him with kande and caused severe injuries. Later, he brought the deceased/ Bhukya Ravi on his motorcycle with the help of his worker to the house of A2, where A2 kicked the deceased/ Bhukya Ravi and caused his death. The accused No.2 also confessed the same and admitted her guilt. Then, the investigating officer recorded their statements, seized the motorcycle Honda Dream Yuga Company bearing No.TS-03-EA-5639 at the instance of A1 and seized Sannihitha receipt of WPS, Warangal , agreement on NJ Stamp dated 27.06.2017, agreement of customary divorce executed by the deceased/ Bhukya

Ravi and A2 from the possession of A2 under the cover of confession- cum-seizure panchanama. Further, A1 lead the police and panchas to

Prakashreddypet where he brought silver kande used in the commission of offence and the police seized the same under cover of panchanama in presence of LW13/Ch.Venu and LW14/E.Suresh. Then, he effected arrest of A1 and A2 and produced them before the Court for remand.

iv.During the course of investigation, the investigating officer ascertained that the deceased/ Bhukya Ravi married and A2 lead their marital life for bout 10 years, later disputes arose in between them, on 20-3-2014 they have decided to get separated and entered into simple

Divorce deed executed in the presence of caste elders. Later, the parents' of the deceased/Bhukya Ravi performed his marriage with one

Sunitha. After getting the customary divorce, A2 got acquaintance with A1 but the deceased frequently visiting her and forcing her to continue relationship with him, for which, she is not interested. She informed the same to A1, on which A1 had taken a rented house at

Waddepally where they started their illicit relations. On coming to know 5 of 16 SC No.23 OF 2020/II Asst. Sessions Court, Hnk. Fair Copy about illicit relationship of A1 and A2, the deceased/ Bhukya Ravi went to the room of A2 and made galata and had taken away Rs.12,000/- from her house. To get rid of deceased/Bhukya Ravi. With the help of

A1, A2 shifted her residence near Julywada. Again the deceased/

Bhukya Ravi went there and beat her with a stone and inflicted severe injuries, she was treated at MGM Hospital, Warangal as in-patient. But due to said quarrel, the house owner got vacated the house. Hence,

A1 and A2 shifted their residence to Labour colony but the deceased/

Bhukya Ravi got the address and approached A2 and started quarreling with her in drunken condition. Due to his attitude, again they shifted their residence from Warangal to Goutham Nagar but the deceased/

Bhukya Ravi visited their house, made nuisance and beat A2 indiscriminately. A1 and A2 tried to convince the deceased/Bhukya

Ravi that they will perform his marriage with another woman, for which the deceased/ Bhukya Ravi grew wild on A1 and warned A2 and also used bad language on A1 to give his elder daughter to him after getting puberty. Hence, A1 grew wild on the deceased/Bhukya Ravi, beat him with a stick but the deceased/ Bhukya Ravi fled away from the place.

v.After 5 days, the deceased/Bhukya Ravi again visited A2 and requested her to allow him but A2 refused him and sent him out. On 6- 5-2018 the deceased/ Bhukya Ravi came near to the locality of A2 in drunken condition and slept at the corner of the house. On 7-5-2018 morning the deceased/ Bhukya Ravi again visited the house of A2 and made quarrel with her, picked up a plastic bucket and beat her on her chest and threatened her that he will see her end. Then, she revealed the incident to A1. On the same day, A1 along with his worker Naveen (LW4) visited the room of A2 to have lunch, at that time the 6 of 16 SC No.23 OF 2020/II Asst. Sessions Court, Hnk. Fair Copy deceased/Bhukya Ravi was present in front of the house. After finishing lunch, A1 questioned the deceased about beating A2 and in this regard hot words were exchanged between them. Hence, A1 and A2 decided to kill the deceased with a plan that A1 sent the deceased to A2 on the pretext of work, when the deceased was in drunken condition A1 took the deceased and LW4/Naveen to his work place dropped LW4/Naveen at about 4.30 p.m., had taken the deceased Prakashreddy into bushes, where he beat the deceased indiscriminately with kande and caused severe internal injuries due to whcih the deceased/ Bhukya Ravi fell unconscious. Later A1 concealed the kande/crime weapon into bushes, went on his work. Later A1 with the help of LW4/Naveen brought the deceased/ Bhukya Ravi on his motorcycle and on the way the deceased/ Bhukya Ravi asked water, then A1 drooped the deceased/

Bhukya Ravi at the house of A2 at about 8.30 p.m, A2 kicked the deceased/ Bhukya Ravi in his stomach and on his back and thereby caused severe internal injuries. The said incident was witnessed by

LW4/Naveen. Due to the above injuries, the deceased/ Bhukya Ravi succumbed to injuries. On ascertaining the death of the deceased/

Bhukya Ravi, A1 and A2 absconded. The neighbour who heard some galata came out of the house and informed the death of the deceased/

Bhukya Ravi to one Sudhakar Police Constable who is residing in the vicinity who in turn informed the same to mother of deceased. During the course of investigation, the investigation officer ascertained that A1 and A2 are committed the above murder, Hence, the charge.

3.The learned VI Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Warangal had taken cognizance for the offence punishable under

Section 302 of Indian Penal Code against the accused and a case 7 of 16 SC No.23 OF 2020/II Asst. Sessions Court, Hnk. Fair Copy is registered as P.R.C. No.295 of 2019 and issued summons to accused.

4.On receipt of the summons, accused A1 and A2 appeared

before the learned Committal Magistrate, then the copies of all

documents furnished to them under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. Later the learned Magistrate has committed the above said P.R.C, to the Hon’ble Principal Sessions Court, Warangal as the offence under Section 302 of IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of

Sessions .

5.After receiving the case file, the Hon’ble Principal Sessions

Court, Warangal registered the case as Sessions Case No. 23 of 2020 and made over to this Court to dispose of the case according to law.

6.On receipt of the case record, this Court has issued summons to A1 and A2. On receipt of the summons, A1 and A2 appeared before this Court by engaging the counsel.

7.Later, upon hearing the learned counsel for the accused A1 and A2 and Public Prosecutor, this Court has framed the charge under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code against the accused A1 and A2, the same is read over and explained to them in Telugu language, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

8. After completion of prosecution evidence, accused A1 and

A2 were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., by explaining the incriminating evidence appearing against them, for which they denied, but reported no defence evidence.

8 of 16 SC No.23 OF 2020/II Asst. Sessions Court, Hnk. Fair Copy

9.Heard the arguments of both sides.

10.Now the point for consideration is:

Whether prosecution has established the guilt of A1 and A2 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt?

11.In order establish the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW15 and got marked Ex.P1 to P9 and MO.1 to MO.3.

PW1 is the defacto-complainant, PW2 is the elder sister of the deceased, PW3 is the eye witness, PW4 is the uncle of the deceased,

PW5 to PW7 are the neighbours, PW8 is the photographer, PW9 and

PW10 are the witnesses for the scene of offence panchanama CDF No.1,

PW11 is the witness for confession cum seizure panchanama of A1 and

A2, PW12 is the panch witness for scene of offence panchanama (CDF

No.2), PW13 is the doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, PW14 and PW15 are the investigating officers.

1 2 . POINT:- Before going further into discussion, the evidence of prosecution witnesses are reiterated below briefly:

13. PW1/Bhukya Kousalya is the defacto-complainant and mother of the deceased. She supported the prosecution version. According to her, the deceased and A2 had illegal relationship and when she questioned the deceased told her that he lives somewhere near Mahabubabad, he would not leave A2, he used to quarrel with her whenever she asked him to leave A2. In this regard, a panchayath was taken place in the presence of 20 caste elders of both sides. A police report was also given. Finally A2 agreed to leave him by taking Rs.50,000/- and accordingly, she paid the same. Then, she performed his son’s 9 of 16 SC No.23 OF 2020/II Asst. Sessions Court, Hnk. Fair Copy marriage with another girl. After 10 days, again A2 started calling her son and hence he started going to her house. He gave Rs.10,000/- to

A2. After 2 or 3 months, the deceased/ Bhukya Ravi staying with the deceased again. On one day, she received phone call from police that her son died. Then, she presented a complaint. She further deposed that she is having suspicion that A2 and her paramour A1 together killed her son. During cross-examination, she admitted that her son was an alcoholic. It is further agreed that her son Ravi was married. A rape case was registered against her son.

14. PW2/G.Rojamani is the sister of the deceased, according to her,

A2 is aged about 45 years old, having husband developed illegal intimacy with others including her brother. She used to make deceased/Ravi to work for her and with his earnings, she used to enjoy, she performed her daughters marriages with the earnings of Ravi and kept Ravi as her husband. Hence, they asked A2 to leave Ravi, for which, A2 lodged a complaint against them. The deceased/ Bhukya

Ravi is not her husband. When her mother and deceased/ Bhukya Ravi attended the police station, they advised them to place the matter

before the panchayath elders and accordingly, the matter was placed

before elders who advised A2 to leave the deceased/Bhukya Ravi by

receiving Rs.50,000/-. On 23.04.2014, they performed the marriage of deceased with one Sunitha, then deceased/ Bhukya Ravi had conjugal life for three months. Thereafter A2 called the deceased/ Bhukya Ravi and both of them lived together. A2 used to torture them for property.

A1 and A2 having illegal relationship planned to eliminate the deceased/ Bhukya Ravi and finally, they have executed the plan. She also admitted that the deceased addicted to alcohol.

10 of 16 SC No.23 OF 2020/II Asst. Sessions Court, Hnk. Fair Copy

15. PW3/G.Naveen is the eye witness to the incident. He is a crucial witness. He did not support the case of the prosecution. He clearly deposed that he does not know the deceased and anything about the case.

16.PW4/G.Bheemudu deposed that he is the brother of PW1, he deposed that during the stay of PW1 and deceased/ Bhukya Ravi at

Hanumakonda, deceased developed illegal intimacy with a married woman (A2). On coming to know, they came down to Hanumakonda and questioned her. The elders also admonished her to behave properly. Then they brought the deceased/ Bhukya Ravi to the village and when they are making trials for performing marriage, A2 lodged report against PW1 and Ravi, then SI of Police called them to Police

Station. Later they came to know that A2 is in the habit of luring the male persons and on the advise of police and on the demand of A2, they gave Rs.50,000/- to A2 with a condition that A2 should not contact the deceased/Bhukya Ravi. In this regard, a resolution was reduced into writing. Later, they performed the marriage of the deceased/ Bhukya

Ravi with one Sunitha of Athmakur village and they lead happy marital life for three months but again A2 started calling the deceased/ Bhukya

Ravi to continue illegal relation. Believing her words, A2 continued the relationship and on one day he left the conjugal society of his wife

Sunitha and started living with her. After some time, A2 developed illegal intimacy with another man and on coming to know about the said relationship, the deceased/ Bhukya Ravi used to inform the same through phone calls to him. On the intervening night of 07.05.2018, they received phone call from police that his nephew Ravi died in the house of A2 at Goutham Nagar. On the next day morning, they went 11 of 16 SC No.23 OF 2020/II Asst. Sessions Court, Hnk. Fair Copy there and they found the dead body of the deceased/Ravi with injuries all over body.

17. PW5 to PW7 who are the neighbours and independent witnesses who heard the cries of the deceased and galata and turned hostile.

Hence, they were cross-examined by the learned Addl.P.P and their 161

Cr.P.C statements were marked as Ex.P2 to P4. During cross- examination by Additional PP, PW7 admitted that he came to know through neighbour that the deceased/ Bhukya Ravi was the husband of

A2 and he was murdered by her along with her paramour. This portion is hearsay evidence, which is not admissible. He did not say anything about the alleged dispute or the cries of the deceased.

18.PW8 is photographer, he supported the prosecution to the extent of taking photographs of the dead body of the deceased. Ex.P5 and

MO.1 are marked.

19.PW9 and PW10 are the witnesses for scene of offence panchanama and rough sketch, they both turned hostile, they did not support the case of the prosecution to the extent of their role in conducting scene of offence and rough sketch. Hence, their signatures were marked as Ex.P6 and P7.

20. PW11 is the witness for confession-cum-seizure panchanama of

A1 and A2, he is the typist in Prosecution department. According to him, on 15.05.2018 , he along with LW14 went to Prashanthnagar on the instructions of Tahasildhar to the H.No.1-9-138/1 where they noticed A1 and A2 and on instructions, they enquired them separately and on their enquiry, A1 confessed the murder of the deceased/ Bhukya Ravi along with A2. Basing on his confession, police seized one Honda Dream

Motorcycle from the possession of A1 under cover of panchanama.

12 of 16 SC No.23 OF 2020/II Asst. Sessions Court, Hnk. Fair Copy

Ex.P8 is the relevant portion of confession panchanama. The said motorcycle is marked as MO.2. On their separate enquiry, A2 also confessed the commission of offence. A1 and A2 also lead them to near

Railway track compound wall at Prakash Reddypeta where they have produced the aluminum pipe used in the murder of deceased and the police recorded the confession cum seizure panchanama. During cross- examination, he admitted that he stood as mediator in 10 to 15 cases and they do not know the accused were apprehended. He also further admitted that MO.2 is easily available in the open market. He further admitted that while recording the confession of A1 and A2, the CI of

Police is present.

21.PW12 is the witness for inquest panchanama, he supported the prosecution case.

22. PW13/Dr.Sk.Khaja Moinuddin, he supported the prosecution version about conducting postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased/ Bhukya Ravi and got marked Ex.P12. According to him, the cause of the death of the deceased/ Bhukya Ravi was due to blunt injury on the chest and abdomen.

23.PW14 and PW15 are the Investigation Officers, they deposed about the receiving of complaint, issuing of FIR, visiting scene of offence, conducting inquest panchanama, sending dead body to postmortem examination, apprehension of accused, recording confession cum seizure panchanama, arrest of accused and filing of charge sheet. During cross-examination, PW14 clearly admitted that the deceased/ Bhukya Ravi was an alcoholic and he used to fell down on the roads in drunken condition.

13 of 16 SC No.23 OF 2020/II Asst. Sessions Court, Hnk. Fair Copy

24. PW15 another investing officer, he deposed that he received CD file from PW14, verified the investigation done by him, recorded

Sec.164 Cr.P.C statement of PW3 and filed of charge sheet.

25.This is a case of brutal murder of the deceased. The prosecution alleged that A2 wife of the deceased having developed illegal intimacy with A1 in order to continue it, they brutally murdered the deceased.

PW1, 2 and 4 are the defacto-complainant and family members of deceased. All of them are clearly deposed that the deceased was having illegal intimacy with A2. As per their contention, A2 is woman of easy virtue having multiple extra marital relationship. As per prosecution, the deceased married A2 and lead conjugal life for more than 10 years. After that, they have taken customary divorce. A2 had taken Rs.50,000/- to go away from deceased. After some time, the deceased got second marriage with one Sunitha. Again A2 started calling him and at her instance, the deceased/ Bhukya Ravi left his wife and started living with A2 and by that time A2 developed illegal intimacy with a married man/A1. On knowing about the illegal intimacy, the deceased/ Bhukya Ravi started quarreling with A2 and made galata wherever they are. In that process, she shifted many houses wherever she moves the deceased/ Bhukya Ravi went there and started quarreling because of that attitude the owners got A2 to vacate the houses. They have vexed with the behaviour of the deceased/

Bhukya Ravi. When A1 questioned the deceased/Bhukya Ravi, he beat

A2 number of times and used unparliamentary language asking him to sent his daughter after getting puberty. Hence A1 and A2 conspired with each other and on the pretext of taking him to work made him to consume alcohol and when he was in drunken condition A1 beat him on his chest and back with kande and after some time with the help of 14 of 16 SC No.23 OF 2020/II Asst. Sessions Court, Hnk. Fair Copy

PW3, he shifted the injured (deceased) to the house of A2 where A2 kicked him and due to which the deceased/ Bhukya Ravi died. PW3 is eye witness to the incident. As per prosecution version, PWs.3, 5 to 7 are circumstantial witnesses. The evidence of PW3 is crucial. He was present who assisted A1 in shifting the deceased/ Bhukya Ravi to the house of A2. Surprisingly, when he entered into witness box, he did not depose anything. He categorically deposed that he does not know the deceased/Bhukya Ravi and anything about this case .

26.Coming to the evidence of PW5 to PW7, who are circumstantial witnesses, they are neighbours to A2. As per the contention of prosecution, PW6 is the lost person who saw A1 was taking the deceased/ Bhukya Ravi on his motorcycle. PW5 and PW7 heard the quarrel on that day. Surprisingly, all these witnesses turned hostile and did not support the prosecution.

27.Further, the prosecution mainly relied on evidence of family members who were not present at the scene of offence at the relevant time. They are interested witnesses. They have enemity with A2. PW11 is witness for confession cum sizure panchanma. He supported the prosecution case about confession cum seizure of material objects.

According to him, the CI of Police was present while he was recording the confession. There are cretina of judgments that the confession recorded in the presence of police officer when the accused were in the police custody is not admissible. Admittedly the alleged crime weapon is easily available in the local market. Further, he acted as mediator in 10 to 15 cases. When the material witnesses turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case, the court cannot solely on the evidence of a mediator who is stock witness of police.

15 of 16 SC No.23 OF 2020/II Asst. Sessions Court, Hnk. Fair Copy

28.Suspicion however it may be strong cannot be a base for conviction. Admittedly, the deceased/Bhukya Ravi was an alcoholic, he used to fell down on the roads in a drunken condition. It was elicited in the cross-examination of investigating officer and also from his family members which gives strength to the argument of defence counsel that the injuries sustained by deceased were not caused accidentally. In the above circumstances, accused are entitled for benefit of doubt. Basing on the above discussion, the prosecution failed to establish the guilty of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

29. IN THE RESULT, A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec. 302 of Indian Penal Code and they are acquitted under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused Nos. 1 and 2 shall remain in force for a period of (6) months as provided under

Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. M.Os.1 and 3 shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time. M.O.2 which was already given to its owner is made absolute after lapse of appeal time.

(Dictated to the Stenographer Gr.1, after transcription, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 8th day of February, 2023.)

II-Addl. Sessions Judge, Hanamkonda.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined.

FOR PROSECUTION:

PW.1 B.Kousalya PW.2 G.Rojamani PW.3 G.Naveen PW.4 G.Bheemudu PW. 5 J. Manisai PW.6 V.Satyawathi PW.7 Ch.Kishan PW.8 B. Krishna PW.9 V.Ramalingam 16 of 16 SC No.23 OF 2020/II Asst. Sessions Court, Hnk. Fair Copy

PW.10 V.Raju PW.11 Ch.Venu PW.12 G.Babu Rao PW.13 Dr. Sk. Khaja Moinuddin PW.14 C.Sateesh Babu PW.15 S.V.Raghavender Rao

FOR DEFENCE

None

Documents Marked

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P.1: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3 Ex.P.2: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW5 Ex.P.3: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW6 Ex.P.4: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW7 Ex.P.5 : Photographs (6) Ex.P.6 : Signature of PW9 on CDF, dated 08.05.2018. Ex.P.7 : Signature of PW10 on CDF dated 08.05.2018. Ex.P.8 : Relevant portion of confession panchanama Ex.P.9 : Relevant portion of confession panchanama Ex.P.10: Inquest panchanama Ex.P.11: CDF Ex.P.12: Postmortem Examination Report Ex.P.13: Complaint Ex.P.14 : FIR Ex.P.15 : CDF Ex.P16 : Relevant portion of confession which leads to recovery of material object Ex.P17 : Complaint receipt, dated 14.08.2017. Ex.P18 :Divorce Agreement dated 20.03.2014 Ex.P19 : Agreement dated 27.06.2017.

FOR DEFENCE

Ex.D1 : Part of 161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW4.

Material Objects marked.

MO.1 : 2 CDs MO.2 : Motorcycle bearing No. TS 03 EA 5639 MO.3 : Aluminum pipe

II Addl. Sessions Judge, Hanamkonda.

1 of 12 SC No.109 OF 2022/II Asst. Sessions Court, Hnk. Fair Copy

IN THE COURT OF II-ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

HANUMAKONDA.

Saturday, this the 1st day of April, 2023

PRESENT: SMT. M.PADMAJA,

II-Addl. Sessions Judge, Hanumakonda.

SESSIONS CASE NO. 109 OF 2022

(PRC No.34 of 2021 on the file of Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal in Crime No. 17 of 2021 of Police Station, Kazipet)

1.Name and description of the: The State of Telangana through complainantthe Inspector of Police, PS. Kazipet

2.Name and description of the: A1: Jetti Ravi, S/o Komraiah, Age: 41 accused :years, Occu: Car Driver R/o. H.No. 1- 1-1157, Siddarthanagar, Kazipet, N/o Jakaram Village of Mulugu Mandal and District.

A2 :Dagilla Sarangapani, S/o Venkataswamy, Age: 39 years, Occu: Painter, R/o. 1-1-1159/5, Babu Camp, Siddarthanagar, Kazipet .

3.Prosecution conducted by: Additional Public Prosecutor.

4.Accused defended by: Sri E.Anand Mohan, Advocate.

5.Offences charged: Under Section 302 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.

6.Plea of the accused: Pleaded not guilty.

7.Finding of the Court: Found Not guilty.

8.Sentence or Order: In the result, A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/S. 302 r/w 34 of Indian penal code and they are acquitted under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused Nos. 1 and 2 shall remain in force for a period of (06) months as provided under section 437-A of Cr.P.C. Since there is no property, property order is not being passed

This Sessions Case is coming on 07.02.2023before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri.G.Ravinder Rao, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State/complainant and of Sri E.Anand Mohan, 2 of 12 SC No.109 OF 2022/II Asst. Sessions Court, Hnk. Fair Copy

Advocate for the Accused and after hearing the arguments of both sides and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, this Court delivered the following:

:: J U D G M E N T ::

1. The accused A1 and A2 are brought before this Court to face trial for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 r/w 34 of the

Indian Penal Code.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief as follows :

i). That the deceased/Chiluveru Sambaiah is husband of defacto - complainant. That on 21.01.2021 at about 9.30 p.m, when the deceased/Sambaiah along with his colleague Suman were returning from their work places and on the way of their return, they went to

Ramaswamy Wines at REC, at Kazipet and purchased liquor bottles.

Thereafter, the said Suman went to attend natural calls and when he was coming out, he noticed A1 and his two friends were abusing the deceased/Chiluveru Sambaiah and beating him with hands.

Immediately, he intervened and tried to rescue him. Then the said offenders pelted stones on them resulting bleeding injuries were caused to deceased/Chiluveru Sambaiah. The said three persons pushed the deceased/Chiluveru Sambiah on the ground, due to which, he fell down and sustained injuries on his back side of head.

Immediately, Suman had shifted him to MGM Hospital, Warnagal for treatment and informed the incident to the defacto-complainant.

Immediately, she rushed to hospital. On the advise of doctors, the deceased was shifted to Osmania General Hospital for better treatment.

ii. On receipt of report from defacto-complainant, police registered a case in Crime No. 17/2021 for the offences punishable U/Sec. 324, 290 3 of 12 SC No.109 OF 2022/II Asst. Sessions Court, Hnk. Fair Copy r/w 34 of IPC. During the course of investigation, the Investigation

Officer examined the witnesses, recorded their statements, visited the scene of offence. He also visited MGM Hospital, Warangal and found the injured was in coma and as such he could not examine him. On 29.01.2021 at about 8.30 a.m., on receipt of death intimation from

Osmania General Hospital, he altered the Section of law to Section 302, 290 r/w 34 of IPC and visited the Osmania General Hospital, where he got photographed the scene of offence with the help of LW12/R.Kamal

Kumar, re-examined LW1 to LW3 (Ch.Rama, K.Suman and Ch.Ravi

Kiran) and conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of two mediators i.e., LW17/K.Ranjith and

LW18/K.Narsaiah and sent the dead body to Osmania General Hospital for Postmortem Examination.

Iii.During the course of investigation, he examined LW6 to

LW11(M.Ravi, M.Gopi, B.Yella Goud, P.Satyam, P.Sathish, A.Yadgiri), visited Indian Oil Petrol Bunk near NIT, Kazipet, collected CC camera footage dtd: 21.01.2021, extracted the same into DVD and recorded the statements of LW13/L.Krishna Nayak on 04.12.2021 at about 9.00 p.m.

LW14/K.Sambaiah brought the accused A1 and A2 to Police Station in whose presence they made extra judicial confession. Hence, he got recorded the statement of LW14, secured the presence of mediators

LW19/K.Krishna and LW20/N.Shankar and in their presence, he enquired

A1 and A2 and on enquiry, A1 and A2 confessed the offence in the same manner. Then, he recorded their confession under cover of panchanama, effected the arrest of accused and produced them before the court for remand.

4 of 12 SC No.109 OF 2022/II Asst. Sessions Court, Hnk. Fair Copy iv.During the course of investigation, the investigation officer ascertained that on 21.01.2021 about 9.30 p.m., A1 and A2 due to sudden petty disputes with an intention to kill the deceased/Chiluveru

Sambaiah, beat him indiscriminately with hands on the head, face, stomach, A1 fisted hardly on the left side of head, due to which the deceased/Chiluveru Sambiah fell down on the road and died while undergoing treatment.

3.The learned Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal had taken cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code against the accused and a case is registered as

P.R.C. No.34/2021 and issued summons to accused.

4.On receipt of the summons, accused A1 and A2 appeared before the learned Committal Magistrate, the copies of all documents were furnished to them under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. Later the learned

Magistrate has committed the above said P.R.C, to the Hon’ble Principal

Sessions Court, Warangal as the offence under Section 302 r/w 34 of

IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions .

5.After receiving the case file, the Hon’ble Principal Sessions Court,

Warangal registered the case as Sessions Case No. 109 of 2022 and made over to this Court to dispose of the case according to law.

6.On receipt of the case record, this Court has issued summons to

A1 and A2. On receipt of the summons, A1 and A2 appeared before this

Court by engaging the counsel.

7.Later, upon hearing the learned counsel for the accused A1 and

A2 and Public Prosecutor, this Court has framed the charge under

Section 302 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code against accused A1 and A2, 5 of 12 SC No.109 OF 2022/II Asst. Sessions Court, Hnk. Fair Copy the same is read over and explained to them in Telugu language, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

8. After completion of prosecution evidence, accused A1 and A2 were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., by explaining the incriminating evidence appearing against them, for which they denied, but reported no defence evidence.

9.Heard the arguments of both sides.

10.Now the point for consideration is:

Whether prosecution has established the guilt of A1 and A2 for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt?

11.In order establish the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW19 and got marked Ex.P1 to 35. On behalf of the defence, none were examined and no documents were marked.

1 2 . POINT:- It is the case of the prosecution that a scuffle was occurred between A1 and A2 and deceased/Chiluveru Sambiah, when the deceased/Chiluveru Sambiah interfered in a discussion of A1 and push cart owner. When A1 questioned the deceased/Chiluveru

Sambaiah who are you to interfere, the deceased/Chiluveru Sambaiah abused him in most filthy language and when A2 interfered the deceased/Chiluveru Sambaiah also abused him and hence A1 and A2 having criminal intention to kill the deceased/Chiluveru Sambaiah, beat him indiscriminately and A2 pushed him and as such he sustained head injury and died.

6 of 12 SC No.109 OF 2022/II Asst. Sessions Court, Hnk. Fair Copy

13. Before going further into discussion, the evidence of prosecution witnesses are reiterated below briefly as follows: PW2 to PW6 and PW8 and PW9 are the eye witnesses to the occurrence. PW8 is the photographer , PW10 is the person in whose presence extra judicial confession was made by A1 and A2 and who produced the accused

before the police. PW11 is the witness for scene of offence

panchanama. PW12 and PW13 are the witnesses for inquest panchanama. PW14 and PW15 are the mediators for confession panchanama of A1 and A2. PW16 is the CC Camera Technician who extracted the footage and issued Section 65-B Certificate. PW17 is the doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased.

PW18 and 19 are the investigation officers.

14. Except PW1, PW2 PW12, PW13, PW17, PW19, remaining all eye witnesses, circumstantial witnesses and mediators for confession were turned hostile. They did not support the prosecution case in any extent.

15. Though, PW1 supported the prosecution case, in her chief examination affidavit, admittedly, she is a hearsay witness. She was not present at the scene of offence but she gave report as if she witnessed the incident. However, to the extent of scuffle and death of the deceased, her evidence can be considered. Surprisingly, during her cross-examination, she completely reciled from her chief examination and deposed that her husband is habituated to alcohol every day and when she visited MGM Hospital, her husband was in conscious and when she questioned him he replied that he fell down and sustained injuries. She further deposed that she does not know the contents of

Ex.P1 and the deceased/Sambaiah did not reveal the names of persons who are responsible in causing injuries on him.

7 of 12 SC No.109 OF 2022/II Asst. Sessions Court, Hnk. Fair Copy

16. PW2/Suman another crucial witness, he is eye witness to the incident, he was present all over the incident and he tried to rescue the deceased/Sambaiah. During his chief examination, he deposed that when there was a quarrel took place between Satyam/LW19 and A1 and

A2, the said LW8/Satyam was telling sorry to A1, meanwhile, his deceased brother-in-law interfered, for which, A1 questioned him who are you to enquire. In this regard, there was a hot exchange of words between them and when the deceased/Sambaiah and Ravi A1 were fighting with each other Ravi brother-in-law intervened, beat him with hands, they gave punches, kicked him with legs, due to which the deceased/Sambaiah tried to escape by running into petrol bunk but

A1and A2 chased him in front of petrol bunk, A1 kicked him from his front side and as such the deceased/Sambaiah fell down to his back and sustained head injury.

17.During cross-examination, he also deposed that he and his brother-in-law(deceased) both are habituated to alcohol. He further admitted that due to excessive consumption of liquor the deceased/Sambaiah used to shake and fell down frequently. At the time of incident, there was 10 to 15 members were present and witnessed the incident and in that quarrel the deceased/Sambaiah interfered and in the said quarrel the deceased fell down and sustained injuries. He further admitted that they do not have any prior acquaintance with accused. He further admitted that the the accused are responsible for the death of his deceased brother-in-law.

18. PW3 to PW6, PW8 and PW9 are eye witnesses to the incident.

PW6 push track vendor. PW8 is his son. PW9 is sales man in

Ramaswamy Wines Shop and eye witness to the incident. All of them 8 of 12 SC No.109 OF 2022/II Asst. Sessions Court, Hnk. Fair Copy did not support the prosecution case. They clearly deposed that they do not know anything about this case and they gave statement before II

Addl. Judl Magistrate of First, Warangal under 164 of Cr.P.C at the instance of police.

19. PW7 is the photographer who photographed the deceased dead body has supported the prosecution case to the extent of his taking photographs of the deceased under Ex.P11,.

20. PW10 is another crucial witness, he is the person in whose presence the accused A1 and A2 made extra judicial confession and he made them to surrender before police. He also did not support the prosecution case.

21. PW11 is the witness for scene of offence panchanama, he supported to the extent of his presence at the time of recording Ex.P15 panchanama. .

22. PW12 and PW13 are witnesses for panchanama. They also turned hostile as such signatures were marked as Ex.P16 and P17

23. PW14 and PW15 are the VRAs who are the mediators of confession of A1 and A2. According to them, on the instructions of their

RI, they went to 100 feet road, at Darga where police prepared one panchanama and read over it and explained. After that, they signed over it and signatures were marked Ex.P18 to P21 as they did not support the prosecution case. When they were cross-examined by learned APP and posed suggestions for which they denied. They clearly deposed that they did not see A1 and A2 when they at the time of panchanamas. PW15 deposed that he witnessed A1 and A2 were 9 of 12 SC No.109 OF 2022/II Asst. Sessions Court, Hnk. Fair Copy enquired by Inspector of Police and confessed the offence. They clearly deposed that they did not enquire A1 and A2.

24. PW16 is the CC TV Technician, he supported to the extent of extracting CC camera at Indian Oil Bunk near scene of offence. Ex.P25 is the Certificate issued under Sec.65-B of Indian Evidence Act. Ex.P23 is the DVD. Though, he was cross-examined by learned defence counsel no useful material was elicited except posing suggestion.

25. PW17 is the Dr.Abhijith Subhedar who conducted postmortem examination, he supported the case of the prosecution. During cross- examination, he deposed that there are no injuries on either of the side of eyes of the deceased except surgical injury, there is no other injury on his face.

26. PW18, ASI of Police who received complaint, issued FIR and supported the prosecution case. During cross-examination, as per the averment of Ex.P1, there are three offenders involved in the offence. He did not obtain the signature of panch witnesses on CDF and panchanama. He did not examine anybody from the wine shop.

27.PW19 Investigation Officer deposed about investigation, apprehension of accused, their confession and arrest and filing of charge sheet etc.

28. A cumulative appraisal of oral and documentary evidence of

PW1 to PW19 and Ex.P1 to P35 and on perusal of DVD, it appears that there was scuffle taken place in front of petrol bunk in the scene of offence. The reason for scuffle as per the investigation officer is that when Satyam owner of petty shop said sorry to A1 as the food contains iron mole, meanwhile, the deceased intervened and tried to enquire 10 of 12 SC No.109 OF 2022/II Asst. Sessions Court, Hnk. Fair Copy with Satyam for which A1 questioned about the reason for verification, for which the deceased himself and provoked and abused A1 and A2 in most filthy language. Hence, scuffle was took place. As per the DVD i.e.,

CC camera footage, three persons were involved in the subject incident.

But the police filed charge sheet against two persons only. About the involvement of third offender, there is no recital in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The complainant and eye witnesses, all turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case about the involvement of accused and they deposed that the deceased is habituated to liquor and he used to shake and fell down. Though, there was scuffle between the accused and the deceased, the fact that they had no previous acquaintance and animosity to attribute motive to the accused A1 and

A2. It appears that the incident was occurred suddenly. Further, A1 and A2 were not having any motive to kill the deceased. It appears that the deceased is habituated to alcohol and he was in drunken condition by the time of incident. There is no evidence to show that deceased died due to the injuries inflicted by accused.

29. To establish the offence of murder, the prosecution has to establish the following three essential ingredients i) That there should be an intention of causing death ii. . The act must be done with the knowledge that the act is likely to cause the death of another and iii) that there should be an intention to cause such bodily injury. When the prima facie witnesses turned hostile, the alleged witnesses for extra judicial confession and mediators for confession panchanama were resciled from their earlier version and did not support the prosecution case, the court has no other go except to acquit the accused. In a criminal case, it is the duty of the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. In this case, the 11 of 12 SC No.109 OF 2022/II Asst. Sessions Court, Hnk. Fair Copy prosecution, failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the accused are entitled for acquittal.

30. In the result, A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/S. 302 r/w 34 of Indian penal code and they are acquitted under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused Nos. 1 and 2 shall remain in force for a period of (06) months as provided under section 437-A of Cr.P.C. Since there is no property, property order is not being passed.

(Dictated to the Stenographer Gr.1, after transcription, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 1st day of April, 2023.)

II-Addl. Sessions Judge, Hanamkonda.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined.

FOR PROSECUTION: PW.1 Ch.Rama PW.2 K.Suman PW.3 M.Ravi PW.4 M.Gopi PW. 5 B.Yella Goud PW.6 P.Satyam PW.7 R.Kamal Kumar PW.8 P.Sathish PW.9 A. Yadagiri PW.10 K.Sambaiah PW.11 B.Srinivas PW.12 K.Ranjith PW.13 Narsaiah PW.14 K.Krishna PW.15 N.Shankar PW.16 Krishna Naik PW.17 Dr.Abhijith Subhedar PW.18 M.Sridhar PW.19 R.Narender

FOR DEFENCE

None

Documents Marked

12 of 12 SC No.109 OF 2022/II Asst. Sessions Court, Hnk. Fair Copy

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P.1: Report Ex.P.2: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3 Ex.P.3: Signature of PW3 on Sec.164 Cr.P.C statement Ex.P.4: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW4 Ex.P.5 : Sec.164 Cr.P.C statement of PW4 Ex.P.6 : Signature of PW4 on Test Identification Parade Ex.P.7 : Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW5 Ex.P.8 : Signature of PW5 on Test Identification Parade Ex.P.9 : Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW6 Ex.P.10: Signature of PW6 on Test Identification Parade Ex.P.11: 5- Photographs Ex.P.12: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW8 Ex.P.13: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW9 Ex.P.14 : Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW10 Ex.P.15 : Scene of offence panchanama Ex.P16 : Signature of PW12 on inquest panchanama Ex.P17 : Signature of PW13 on inquest panchanama Ex.P18 and 19 are signature of PW14 on Confession panchanama of A1 and A2. Ex.P20 and 21 are signature of PW14 on Confession panchanama of A1 and A2. Ex.P22 : Certificate issued U/Sec. 65 of Indian Evidence Act Ex.P23: DVD Ex.P24: Postmortem Examination Report Ex.P25: First Information Report Ex.P26 and 27 are confession panchanama of A1 and A2 Ex.P28 to 34 are 164 Cr.P.C statements of PW2 to PW6, PW8, PW9 Ex.P35 : Test Identification Parade Proceedings.

FOR DEFENCE

None

Material Objects marked.

NIL

II Addl. Sessions Judge, Hanamkonda.

1 Crl.R.P.No 3 of 2023 (Fair)

IN THE COURT OF II ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, HANUMAKONDA

Monday, this the 13th day of February, 2023

Present: Smt M. Padmaja, II Addl. Sessions Judge

Hanumakonda.

Crl.R.P.NO.03 OF 2023

Between:

Gudipati Sricharan Reddy, S/o Sriram Reddy, Age: 24 years, Occu: Student, R/o H.No.5-11-676/D, Naimnagar, Hanumakonda District.

..Revision Petitioner/Accused A N D

The State of Telangana, rep.by SHO Shayampet.

..Respondent/Complainant.

Crl.M.P.No. 390 OF 2022 in C.C.No.6507 OF 2022 of PS.

Hanumakonda.

Gudipati Sricharan Reddy, S/o Sriram Reddy, Age: 24 years, Occu: Student, R/o H.No.5-11-676/D, Naimnagar, Hanumakonda District.

...Petitioner

/Accused No. 3

A N D

The State of Telangana, through by SHO P.S. Hanumakonda.

..Respondent/Complainant

This petition is coming before me for final hearing on 31.01.2023 in the presence of C.Vidyasagar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitionerandAdditional Public Prosecutor for the Respondent/Complainant and having stood over for consideration, till this day, this court delivered the following:

:O R D E R:

1.This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the Revision petitioner/Accused No.3 U/Sec.397 and 399 Cr.P.C challenging the order of the learned II Addl.Junior Civil Judge-cum-Special Judl.Magistrate of First

Class, Hanumakonda dated 21.12.2022 dismissing the petition vide

Crl.M.P.No.390 of 2022 in C.C.No.6507/2022.

2 Crl.R.P.No 3 of 2023 (Fair)

2.Notice given to learned Additional Public Prosecutor. He opposed the petition and filed counter.

3. Heard both sides. Perused the record.

4.Now the point for consideration is :

Whether the Lower court erred in dismissing the Crl.M.P.No.390 of 2022 in C.C.No.6507/2022, dated 21.12.2022 ?

5. The contention of the revision petitioner is that the trial court without going into the averments of the petition, without assigning any valid reasons and without considering undertaking letter given by the petitioner simply dismissed Crl.M.P.No.390/2022 on mere assumptions and presumptions.

6. The contention of the petitioner is that he did B.Tec. Working as Site

Engineer in a construction Company getting lot of job opportunities in abroad and hence on 14.10.2022 he filed application for getting passport. But the passport authorities directed him to get clearance certificate from the court, as there are two crimes pending against him. He gave undertaking letter

before trial court that he is ready and willing to appear before this Court as

and when the court directs. But, the learned JFCM Court without seeing the merits, dismissed the petition.

7.Whereas the learned counsel Public Prosecutor argued that the petitioner/accused involved in two crimes and as such he is not entitled to get passport U/Sec. 6(ii)(f) of Passport Act, 1961.

8. Perused Section 6(ii) (f) of Passport Act 1961. Section 6 deals refusal of passports travel document etc. As per Section 6(ii) the Passport authorities shall refuse to issue passport or travel documents for visit any foreign country for the reasons mentioned therein out of which the proceedings in 3 Crl.R.P.No 3 of 2023 (Fair) respect of the any offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant pending before any Criminal Court in India is one of the ground for refusal of passport.

9.Perused the record. The petitioner allegedly involved in crime number

Nos.373/2020 of PS Hanumakonda for the offences U/Secs.143, 147, 290, 324, 427 and 506 r/w 149 of IPC and Crime No. 432/2020 of PS

Hanumakonda for the offences U/Sec. 143, 188, 342, r/w 149 IPC and Sec.

51(B) DMA Act. As per the contention of the petitioner that the alleged offences are bailable and he was falsely implicated in this case and that he is ready and willing to obey the orders of this Court regarding his appearance.

10.In support of the arguments of the revision petitioner, he relied on a

Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court betweenVangala Kasturi

Rangacharyulu Appellant V. Central Bureau of Investigation

Respondent 2021 (0) Supreme (SC) 992, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme

Court held that “the refusal of passport can be only in case where an applicant is convicted during the period of 5 years immediately proceeding the date of application for an offence involving moral turpitude and sentence or imprisonment not less than 2 years. Sec. 6(ii) relates to a situation where the applicant is facing a trial in a criminal court. In the said case, the conviction of the appellant stands still the disposal of the criminal appeal. The sentence which he has to undergo for a period of one year. The passport authority cannot refuse the renewal of the passport on the ground of the pendency of the criminal appeal. Hence, the Hon’ble Apex Court directed the Passport authorities to renew the passport”. This citation is not 4 Crl.R.P.No 3 of 2023 (Fair) applicable to the present facts of the case, as the case is not a case of renewal.

11.The learned counsel for petitioner further relied on a judgment of

Hon’ble High Court Nijal Navish Shah Vs. The state of Maharashtra

and another. It relates to the renewal of the passport of the applicant which is also not applicable to the present facts of the case.

12.Further, the learned revision petitioner relied on Valasimgam

Vyshnavi V. Union of India, Ministry of External Affairs Regional

Passport Office at Vijayawada and others. Wherein the Hon’ble High

Court of A.P held that the petitioner involved in a criminal case has to seek permission from the competent Court for issuance of passport for specified period and if no period is specified for issue of passport or for travel abroad,

Passport shall be issued for a period of one year. The court while observing the same advised the petitioner herein to approach the criminal court and the court shall consider application of petitioner and pass appropriate orders.

In this case the offences alleged are neither punishable with death nor life.

The petitioner is a young man having bright future. Whether he really involved in offence or not cannot be decided without trial. Denial of his right to get passport will effect his career and life. He is a B.Tech holder having high prospectus in life.

13.In view of the above judgment of Hon’ble High Court, the revision petitioner can be permitted to get passport for one year. The learned II

Addl.Junior Civil Judge-cum-Special Judl.Magistrate of First Class,

Hanumakonda under PCR Act at Hanumakonda did not consider the same 5 Crl.R.P.No 3 of 2023 (Fair) and hence the order of learned Magistrate in Crl.M.P.No.390 of 2022 in

C.C.No.6507/2022, dated 21.12.2022 needs to be interfered.

13. In the result, this revision petition is allowed setting aside the order of learned II Addl.Junior Civil Judge-cum-Special Judl.Magistrate of First Class,

Hanumakonda under PCR Act at Hanumakonda dated 21.12.2022 vide

Crl.M.P.No.390 of 2022 in C.C.No.6507/2022, permitting the revision

petitioner to get Indian Passport in the interest of justice for a period of one year.

(Dictated to to the Stenographer Gr.1, after transcription, corrected and

pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 13th day of February, 2023)

II Addl. Sessions Judge, Hanumakonda.

1 Crl.R.P.No 2 of 2023 (Fair)

IN THE COURT OF II ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, HANUMAKONDA

Monday, this the 13th day of February, 2023

Present: Smt M. Padmaja, II Addl. Sessions Judge

Hanumakonda.

Crl.R.P.NO. 0 2 OF 2023

Between:

Gudipati Sricharan Reddy, S/o Sriram Reddy, Age: 24 years, Occu: Student, R/o H.No.5-11-676/D, Naimnagar, Hanumakonda District.

..Revision Petitioner/Accused A N D

The State of Telangana, rep.by SHO Shayampet.

..Respondent/Complainant.

Cr.No. 391 of 2022 in C.C.No. 6524/2022 of PS. Hanumakonda

Gudipati Sricharan Reddy, S/o Sriram Reddy, Age: 24 years, Occu: Student, R/o H.No.5-11-676/D, Naimnagar, Hanumakonda District.

...Petitioner

/Accused No.13

A N D

The State of Telangana, through by SHO P.S. Hanumakonda.

..Respondent/Complainant

This petition is coming before me for final hearing on 31.01.2023 in the presence of C.Vidyasagar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitionerandAdditional Public Prosecutor for the Respondent/Complainant and having stood over for consideration, till this day, this court delivered the following:

:O R D E R:

1.This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the Revision petitioner/Accused No.13 U/Sec.397 and 399 Cr.P.C challenging the order of the learned II Addl.Junior Civil Judge-cum-Special Judl.Magistrate of First

Class, Hanumakonda dated 21.12.2022 dismissing the petition vide

Crl.M.P.No.391 of 2022 in C.C.No.6524/2022.

2 Crl.R.P.No 2 of 2023 (Fair)

2.Notice given to learned Additional Public Prosecutor. He opposed the petition and filed counter.

3. Heard both sides. Perused the record.

4.Now the point for consideration is :

Whether the Lower court erred in dismissing the Crl.M.P.No.391 of 2022 in C.C.No.6524/2022, dated 21.12.2022 ?

5. The contention of the revision petitioner is that the trial court without going into the averments of the petition, without assigning any valid reasons and without considering undertaking letter given by the petitioner simply dismissed Crl.M.P.No.391/2022 on mere assumptions and presumptions.

6. The contention of the petitioner is that he did B.Tec. working as Site

Engineer in a construction Company getting lot of job opportunities in abroad and hence on 14.10.2022 he filed application for getting passport. But the passport authorities directed him to get clearance certificate from the court, as there are two crimes pending against him. He gave undertaking letter

before trial court that he is ready and willing to appear before this Court and

when the court directs. But, the learned JFCM Court without seeing the merits, dismissed the petition.

7.Whereas the learned counsel Public Prosecutor argued that the petitioner/accused involved in two crimes and as such he is not entitled to get passport U/Sec. 6(ii)(f) of Passport Act, 1961.

8. Perused Section 6(ii) (f) of Passport Act 1961. Section 6 deals refusal of passports travel document etc. As per Section 6(ii) the Passport authorities shall refuse to issue passport or travel documents for visit any foreign country for the reasons mentioned therein out of which the proceedings in 3 Crl.R.P.No 2 of 2023 (Fair) respect of the any offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant pending before any Criminal Court in India is one of the ground for refusal of passport.

9.Perused the record. The petitioner allegedly involved in crime number

Nos.373/2020 of PS Hanumakonda for the offences U/Secs.143, 147, 290, 324, 427 and 506 r/w 149 of IPC and Crime No. 432/2020 of PS

Hanumakonda for the offences U/Sec. 143, 188, 342, r/w 149 IPC and Sec.

51(B) DMA Act. As per the contention of the petitioner that the alleged offences are bailable and he has falsely implicated in this case and that he is ready and willing to obey the orders of this Court regarding his appearance.

10.In support of the arguments of the revision petitioner, he relied on a

Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court betweenVangala Kasturi

Rangacharyulu Appellant V. Central Bureau of Investigation

Respondent 2021 (0) Supreme (SC) 992, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme

Court held that “the refusal of passport can be only in case where an applicant is convicted during the period of 5 years immediately proceeding the date of application for an offence involving moral turpitude and sentence or imprisonment not less than 2 years. Sec. 6(ii) relates to a situation where the applicant is facing a trial in a criminal court. In the said case, the conviction of the appellant stands still the disposal of the criminal appeal. The sentence which he has to undergo for a period of one year. The passport authority cannot refuse the renewal of the passport on the ground of the pendency of the criminal appeal. Hence, the Hon’ble Apex Court directed the Passport authorities to renew the passport”. This citation is not 4 Crl.R.P.No 2 of 2023 (Fair) applicable to the present facts of the case, as the case is not a case of renewal.

11.The learned counsel for petitioner further relied on a judgment of

Hon’ble High Court Nijal Navish Shah Vs. The state of Maharashtra

and another. It relates to the renewal of the passport of the applicant which is also not applicable to the present facts of the case.

12.Further, the learned revision petitioner relied on Valasimgam

Vyshnavi V. Union of India, Ministry of External Affairs Regional

Passport Office at Vijayawada and others. Wherein the Hon’ble High

Court of A.P held that the petitioner involved in a criminal case has to seek permission from the competent Court for issuance of passport for specified period and if no period is specified for issue of passport or for travel abroad,

Passport shall be issued for a period of one year. The court while observing the same advised the petitioner herein to approach the criminal court and the court shall consider application of petitioner and pass appropriate orders.

In this case the offences alleged are neither punishable with death nor life.

The petitioner is a young man having bright future. Whether he really involved in offence or not cannot be decided without trial. Denial of his right to get passport will effect his career and life. He is a B.Tech holder having high prospectus in life.

13.In view of the above judgment of Hon’ble High Court, the revision petitioner can be permitted to get passport for one year. The learned II

Addl.Junior Civil Judge-cum-Special Judl.Magistrate of First Class,

Hanumakonda under PCR Act at Hanumakonda did not consider the same 5 Crl.R.P.No 2 of 2023 (Fair) and hence the order of learned Magistrate in Crl.M.P.No.391 of 2022 in

C.C.No.6524/2022, dated 21.12.2022 needs to be interfered.

13. In the result, this revision petition is allowed setting aside the order of learned II Addl.Junior Civil Judge-cum-Special Judl.Magistrate of First Class,

Hanumakonda under PCR Act at Hanumakonda dated 21.12.2022 vide

Crl.M.P.No.391 of 2022 in C.C.No.6524/2022, permitting the revision

petitioner to get Indian Passport in the interest of justice for a period of one year.

(Dictated to to the Stenographer Gr.1, after transcription, corrected and

pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 13th day of February, 2023)

II Addl. Sessions Judge, Hanumakonda.